Bald Guy Scores A Hottie... And He's Not Even Rich

[Patrick_Bateman]

What is a U.K. Equivalent?

Put on your cringe suits, ladies and gentlemen!

 

[Rudiger]

he wont be calling her baby girl

but some other cringe worthy uk equivalent

moron

I knew a Bri'ush guy who this reminds me of, I saw he tweeted his girlfriend recently

"oi stuff gillette, cuz ur the best a man can get"

 

[OldnBald]

Jesus Christ, can't we just be happy for this guy!!!
This couple?

HAHAHA!

 

[hairblues]

I'll answer you. And it would be no, I'm just being realistic. Of course that's my opinion. Come now, I don't know any of you, nor that couple, so why would I have such a view you suggested? Silly.

As for the Leo comment, I could say you're scale is basement dwelling, by saying she's an 8. I mean come on, an 8 is high on the hog here, hot actresses are 8.5, with an outside chance of a 9. Going with that alone, I'd say my 5.5 would be a hell of a lot closer to reality than an 8. But hey, like I said, it's my opinion, and everyone is different.

I think what happens (and correct me if I am wrong) men sometimes first impression of a woman is high--then after he has sex or sees her a few times it can go down if she is not either 1 really as beautiful as first thought or 2 develops feelings for her that make her more beautiful

But to me and I think @Pasbrillantebrunette and @EvilLocks will agree this girl is not that attractive (but I can see a man finding her sexy especially compared to this dude who has no visual sex appeal)

I think sex appeal is more important than just facial symmetry all time.

 

[CopeForLife]

next step is to check bOld lottery winners

 

[sunchyme1]

What is a U.K. Equivalent?

'babe' would be a common word for these clowns

not quite as bad as babygirl, but not far off

 

[Rudiger]

I'll answer you. And it would be no, I'm just being realistic. Of course that's my opinion. Come now, I don't know any of you, nor that couple, so why would I have such a view you suggested? Silly.

As for the Leo comment, I could say you're scale is basement dwelling, by saying she's an 8. I mean come on, an 8 is high on the hog here, hot actresses are 8.5, with an outside chance of a 9. Going with that alone, I'd say my 5.5 would be a hell of a lot closer to reality than an 8. But hey, like I said, it's my opinion, and everyone is different.

Bringing actresses into it is basement dwelling, in the real world, which I participate in, she's hotter than at least 70% of women around her age, maybe 80%.

Actresses aren't on some pedestool, Emma Roberts is like a 7.5, this girl is around her level. Natalie Portman is 9/10, some rare women in real life compete with that, but it's just a level above the girl in this thread.

If you think 45% of women walking around out there are hotter than her, your reality is most likely grounded in p**rn and feature films.

 

[blackg]

trust me this guys a f*****g retard

anyone walking around with those gay *** shoes and jeans turned up like that is a moron

hair or no hair

Yes the shoes are gay ***, boat style, I think and the jeans are rolled up a couple.
This look is no longer on the fringes. It's standard fare for anyone planted squarely smack bang in the middle of the mainstream.

This look should no longer be a trigger for the insecure, like it was three or four years ago.
It's totally lost its edge. If it ever had one, haha.
It's everywhere..
Open your eyes, folks!

 

[sunchyme1]

next step is to check bOld lottery winners

f*** man whenever i see you post with rick in your avatar i think hes back

i get pumped before realizing its just you trolling him

 

[Rudiger]

I've been trying really hard to come up with a Brit-tard's equivalent to baby girl and the best I can come up with: "darling missus"

 

[sunchyme1]

I've been trying really hard to come up with a Brit-tard's equivalent to baby girl and the best I can come up with: "darling missus"

awight darling, fancy a quickie

 

[Rudiger]

awight darling, fancy a quickie

u want a bruddy good rodgerin u do, lubbly jubblies

 

[OldnBald]

Bringing actresses into it is basement dwelling, in the real world, which I participate in, she's hotter than at least 70% of women around her age, maybe 80%.

Actresses aren't on some pedestool, Emma Roberts is like a 7.5, this girl is around her level. Natalie Portman is 9/10, some rare women in real life compete with that, but it's just a level above the girl in this thread.

If you think 45% of women walking around out there are hotter than her, your reality is most likely grounded in p*rn and feature films.

Let's run this:

Actresses- No, it isn't. I bring that up because it's a commonality we share, in that we both know of them and can compare looks. So also, no, they are not on a pedestal, and you just made a comparision, to my point. And that'd be Emma Roberts, although I didn't know who she was, I looked her up n saw some pics real quick, n I'd say she's 7ish, so we're not far off there, but Id' say she's a far cry higher than the girl I said's 5.5. Way better body, not even close, and still a better face, although outside of the thoroughbred smile, not a whole lot better haha, but a lot younger n more youthful looking.

And finally, no, that doesn't mean in totality that 45% of woman are better looking, but good try haha. Hell, 20% of that 45% (8-10 range) is maybe what, in between 5-7% of the population. Rough figures of course. Haha.

 

[Rudiger]

And finally, no, that doesn't mean in totality that 45% of woman are better looking, but good try haha.

It's not a good try that's what it simply is, a 5.5/10 means she's just over average looking, and 45% of women beat her. That's what the scale is, or at least it should be, so if you see a 2/10 that means she's as attractive or less attractive than 20% of women.

Too many people lose sight of this simple way of observing the /10 scale, and end up with ridiculous outcomes, like only 5% of women being 8/10's or above, those numbers don't add up.

 

[hairblues]

Let's run this:

Actresses- No, it isn't. I bring that up because it's a commonality we share, in that we both know of them and can compare looks. So also, no, they are not on a pedestal, and you just made a comparision, to my point. And that'd be Emma Roberts, although I didn't know who she was, I looked her up n saw some pics real quick, n I'd say she's 7ish, so we're not far off there, but Id' say she's a far cry higher than the girl I said's 5.5. Way better body, not even close, and still a better face, although outside of the thoroughbred smile, not a whole lot better haha, but a lot younger n more youthful looking.

And finally, no, that doesn't mean in totality that 45% of woman are better looking, but good try haha. Hell, 20% of that 45% (8-10 range) is maybe what, in between 5-7% of the population. Rough figures of course. Haha.

You are getting so detailed in this

It's simple

She is still better looking or more attractive to him

If she's a 7 he's a 5

If she's a 5 he's a 3

Etc

Is she hot in my opinion? No

Would you suddenly 'think' she was hot if you saw her out or she smiled and talked to you with interest?
Probably.

 

[OldnBald]

I think what happens (and correct me if I am wrong) men sometimes first impression of a woman is high--then after he has sex or sees her a few times it can go down if she is not either 1 really as beautiful as first thought or 2 develops feelings for her that make her more beautiful

But to me and I think @Pasbrillantebrunette and @EvilLocks will agree this girl is not that attractive (but I can see a man finding her sexy especially compared to this dude who has no visual sex appeal)

I think sex appeal is more important than just facial symmetry all time.

I think women do the same thing in their own way, unless I'm wrong, then of course. Also some guys can get women because of money and status, maybe good looks as well to some extent, making a women think "he must have something that everyone likes and wants to be around, let me see what it is". And then of course some guys, even with some of those attributes, couldn't get women running around with money hung around their neck.

As far as the question goes, kind of. The thrill of the hunt really has a lot to do with it all. Once I've, downed the kill, if you will, there is an immediate relief (outside of the obvious one in the moment), and there is a certain lack of appreciation in some cases. In others, though, if they're really hot, and when all the cloak and armor comes off n they're still hot, at that point I'll break an arm to send my friends a mass text pic of the new out of my league girl haha.

But in general, I don't think my view of a personal rating goes down (unless they look worse than I thought without everything on) after we've been together, but at times my general interest does.

 

[CaptainForehead]

It's not a good try that's what it simply is, a 5.5/10 means she's just over average looking, and 45% of women beat her. That's what the scale is, or at least it should be.

Not really, the numbers scale is not linear, and it should not be. You're talking about a percentile rating which is different from an absolute rating. An absolute rating makes sense because beauty is distributed like a bell curve. A lot of people at the middle, fewer really pretty women and really ugly women. A percentile rating cannot distinguish between ultra pretty and very pretty.

 

[OldnBald]

It's not a good try that's what it simply is, a 5.5/10 means she's just over average looking, and 45% of women beat her. That's what the scale is, or at least it should be, so if you see a 2/10 that means she's as attractive or less attractive than 20% of women.

Too many people lose sight of this simple way of observing the /10 scale, and end up with ridiculous outcomes, like only 5% of women being 8/10's or above, those numbers don't add up.[/QUOTE

Like I said, my opinion, I don't take the scale that way, you do. I reserve say, an 8, as very, very high, and only certain women I will see that way. Going by your version of the scale, Natalie Portman is only a single level above that girl, which I find absurd, I don't think it's even close. What I'd find more absurd, is where would you put say, Kate Beckinsale, if Portman is a 9? Is that girl just a level below her too? You see the flaw in that scaling?

And if not, that's fine, to each is own. She's beautiful, gorgeous, Halle Berry esque, if only a level below.

 

[OldnBald]

You are getting so detailed in this

It's simple

She is still better looking or more attractive to him

If she's a 7 he's a 5

If she's a 5 he's a 3

Etc

Is she hot in my opinion? No

Would you suddenly 'think' she was hot if you saw her out or she smiled and talked to you with interest?
Probably.

I'm having fun with because of the petulant comments, but no, I wouldn't (think she's hot), but I would think I all of a sudden was haha.

 

[OldnBald]

Not really, the numbers scale is not linear, and it should not be. You're talking about a percentile rating which is different from an absolute rating. An absolute rating makes sense because beauty is distributed like a bell curve. A lot of people at the middle, fewer really pretty women and really ugly women. A percentile rating cannot distinguish between ultra pretty and very pretty.

Exactly