Overly Picky.

Bungarra

I've come to the conclusion over the past 3 years that I'm overly picky with women and will probably end up alone until I get old(er) and desperate.

I have a rating system for attraction that goes something like this:
PLUS 1-10 for physical appearance
PLUS 1-5 bonus points for nationality (the more culturally different the better)
PLUS 1-10 for sense of humor (laughing at my crap jokes)
MINUS 1-10 points for immature/stupid people

I've found a 20+ once probably and i had her for a while then lost her to circumstance but I think I still plan on getting her back at some stage. Where i am right for the past couple of years doesn't really lend itself to high point scorers.

The amount of people I see settling for 5-10 pointers is probably 80+%. :eek: I think I'd rather be permanently alone than settle with someone I'm not attracted to/bores me.

Discuss my (or your own similar) issues here please.

The Backwards Man

What's with this rating people craic, it's fcuking disgusting imo. If you like someone you like them, if you don't you don't. End of.

Galwayguy35

The Backwards Man wrote: »

What's with this rating people craic, it's fcuking disgusting imo. If you like someone you like them, if you don't you don't. End of.

Why? Have you got a low rating off someone?

Bungarra

Ha... Sure mate... You like some more than others obviously... Hence the rating. Anyway, it's a rough mental rating, and something which changes the more you get to know someone. I've never discussed it with anyone. Until now. But this is the internet so...

drunkmonkey

Who would you give a 9/10 to?

The Backwards Man

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Why? Have you got a low rating off someone?

I'm sure some people don't like me, I'm sure some despise me, doesn't bother me a bit. But people who rate people like they would grade vegetables make my blood boil.

PickledLime

This bit

Bungarra wrote: »

MINUS 1-10 points for immature/stupid people

And this bit

Bungarra wrote: »

I have a rating system for attraction

Seem to be linked and are probably why you're single.

Bungarra

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Who would you give a 9/10 to?

As in celebrity? 95%+ of famous women are at least 8/10 on the physical attraction scale.

I'd be happy enough with a 7/10er as long as she kept fit and scored high enough in the other categories. :P

Bungarra

PickledLime wrote: »

This bit


And this bit


Seem to be linked and are probably why you're single.

Thanks for the sage advice Limey... It's unlikely I'll take it on board though.

fatherted1969

Breathing / not breathing

Why can't everyone adopt this, life would be so much simpler

monkeysnapper

Many times I've given someone 1

johnners2981

Bungarra wrote: »

I've come to the conclusion over the past 3 years that I'm overly picky with women and will probably end up alone until I get old(er) and desperate.

I have a rating system for attraction that goes something like this:
PLUS 1-10 for physical appearance
PLUS 1-5 bonus points for nationality (the more culturally different the better)
PLUS 1-10 for sense of humor (laughing at my crap jokes)
MINUS 1-10 points for immature/stupid people

I've found a 20+ once probably and i had her for a while then lost her to circumstance but I think I still plan on getting her back at some stage. Where i am right for the past couple of years doesn't really lend itself to high point scorers.

The amount of people I see settling for 5-10 pointers is probably 80+%. :eek: I think I'd rather be permanently alone than settle with someone I'm not attracted to/bores me.

Discuss my (or your own similar) issues here please.

So you rate nationality instead of things like intelligence, open mindedness, ambition and not being a dick etc?

You're rating system is crap tbh

markomuscle

not being a scumbag would do for me, i like to keep things simple, though things get complicated when they are 1/2 scumbags

Amirani

Why bother?

Bungarra

johnners2981 wrote: »

So you rate nationality instead of things like intelligence, open mindedness, ambition and not being a dick etc?

You're rating system is crap tbh

Immature/ stupid category kind of covers the bitch/ intelligence bases... Anyway she doesn't have to be doctor/lawyer. Ambition wouldn't be too important to me either.
Nationality is probably above ambition and intelligence out of the things you listed there.

But yes, I agree, not everything is covered in this rating system. It needs refining but, as i said, it's a rough mental guide.

Bungarra

NiallSparky wrote: »

Why bother?

From the moderator of the Ladies Lounge? "All women should be cherished equally". Ha! Some women are terrible, some are fantastic, some are middle of the road, same with everything...

Amirani

Bungarra wrote: »

From the moderator of the Ladies Lounge? "All women should be cherished equally". Ha! Some women are terrible, some are fantastic, some are middle of the road, same with everything...

Be that as it may, I really wouldn't be bothered devising and refining some scale for all of that. Why not just stick to fantastic, middle of the road and terrible?

Someone who microanalyses every aspect of their partner doesn't sound like a very fun person to be in a relationship with.

Bungarra

NiallSparky wrote: »

Be that as it may, I really wouldn't be bothered devising and refining some scale for all of that. Why not just stick to fantastic, middle of the road and terrible?

Someone who microanalyses every aspect of their partner doesn't sound like a very fun person to be in a relationship with.

Haha... It's not like i say in my head "She's done well today in that category, I'll bump her up to an 8/10"

Generally speaking here, come on... I don't actually use numbers in my head in real life. It's just the best method of describing it through text.

My main problem with other people is that they're not me.

Bungarra

NiallSparky wrote: »

Be that as it may, I really wouldn't be bothered devising and refining some scale for all of that. Why not just stick to fantastic, middle of the road and terrible?

Someone who microanalyses every aspect of their partner doesn't sound like a very fun person to be in a relationship with.

I am fun! :mad:

lahalane

Bungarra wrote: »

I've come to the conclusion over the past 3 years that I'm overly picky with women and will probably end up alone until I get old(er) and desperate.

I have a rating system for attraction that goes something like this:
PLUS 1-10 for physical appearance
PLUS 1-5 bonus points for nationality (the more culturally different the better)
PLUS 1-10 for sense of humor (laughing at my crap jokes)
MINUS 1-10 points for immature/stupid people

I've found a 20+ once probably and i had her for a while then lost her to circumstance but I think I still plan on getting her back at some stage. Where i am right for the past couple of years doesn't really lend itself to high point scorers.

The amount of people I see settling for 5-10 pointers is probably 80+%. :eek: I think I'd rather be permanently alone than settle with someone I'm not attracted to/bores me.

Discuss my (or your own similar) issues here please.

How much points would you score on your own system if the women you knew were judging I wonder?

Of all the things I want in a woman, nationality would never figure into it. That's beyond ridiculous to me.

Sofiztikated

Bungarra wrote: »

I've come to the conclusion over the past 3 years that I'm overly picky with women and will probably end up alone until I get old(er) and desperate.

I have a rating system for attraction that goes something like this:
PLUS 1-10 for physical appearance
PLUS 1-5 bonus points for nationality (the more culturally different the better)
PLUS 1-10 for sense of humor (laughing at my crap jokes)
MINUS 1-10 points for immature/stupid people

I've found a 20+ once probably and i had her for a while then lost her to circumstance but I think I still plan on getting her back at some stage. Where i am right for the past couple of years doesn't really lend itself to high point scorers.

The amount of people I see settling for 5-10 pointers is probably 80+%. :eek: I think I'd rather be permanently alone than settle with someone I'm not attracted to/bores me.

Discuss my (or your own similar) issues here please.

No, your problem is that you are assigning scores to people, and totting up how "suitable" they are for you?

That's why you are single.

Try going on:

Are you attracted to them .
Are they sound.

****ing scores, jesus christ.

Bungarra

Sofiztikated wrote: »

No, your problem is that you are assigning scores to people, and totting up how "suitable" they are for you?

That's why you are single.

Try going on:

Are you attracted to them .
Are they sound.

****ing scores, jesus christ.

Please relax! See my comment explaining this is fairly crude and rough explaination of my thought process. It's just easier to describe this way.
If I knew you, you'd probably be losing points for your uptightness/quick jumps into anger

Bungarra

lahalane wrote: »

How much points would you score on your own system if the women you knew were judging I wonder?

Of all the things I want in a woman, nationality would never figure into it. That's beyond ridiculous to me.

Don't know what I'd score, I doubt they'd be using my system though, most likely a variant of it tailored to their own needs.

I like foreigners because they're generally pretty different to most women I meet and I usually find them more interesting because of this. Is this terrible of me? :rolleyes:

lahalane

Bungarra wrote: »

I like foreigners because they're generally pretty different to most women I meet and I usually find them more interesting because of this. Is this terrible of me? :rolleyes:

Making assumptions about somebody for being a foreigner...some would say it's terrible. :P

RichT

Bungarra wrote: »

I've found a 20+ once probably and i had her for a while then lost her to circumstance............

Did she not put the lotion in the basket?

OP I'd give you one










Out of ten, the hack of ya

michellie

I want to rate OP, pics please !

desertcircus

OP: has it occurred to you that the reason you're single is because drop-dead gorgeous Argentinian/Vietnamese/Namibian women who love bad jokes have more or less the entire male population to pick from? If you're not scoring 80%+ on what women are interested in, then there's not much point in presuming you're entitled to expect any woman you date should be scoring 80%+ on your scale.

GGG500

The Backwards Man wrote: »

I'm sure some people don't like me, I'm sure some despise me, doesn't bother me a bit. But people who rate people like they would grade vegetables make my blood boil.

See a psychiatrist about that.

CruelCoin

Bungarra wrote: »

I have a rating system for attraction that goes something like this:
PLUS 1-10 for physical appearance
PLUS 1-5 bonus points for nationality (the more culturally different the better)
PLUS 1-10 for sense of humor (laughing at my crap jokes)
MINUS 1-10 points for immature/stupid people

So you want a columbian supermodel who laughs like a hyena and with a massive IQ.....

Dude, shallow doesn't cover it.

Edit: Braying tits on legs doesn't do it for me. Not sure why this would be attractive to you beyond an urge to mate sense.

PizzamanIRL

Bungarra wrote: »

I have a rating system

There's your problem.

MonstaMash

OP, you're not over picky...you're just a wanker :eek:

Czarcasm

Don't mind anyone else Bungarra, I certainly get where you're coming from. When you start hitting puberty you'll grow out of that whole ratings nonsense and you'll begin to see how silly it all was back then. You may even be embarrassed about it, but don't be, we all did childish things when we were children.

bumper234

I think op is alone because he doesn't realise that women are using the EXACT rating system as him and he is a 2/10.

Legs.Eleven

desertcircus wrote: »

OP: has it occurred to you that the reason you're single is because drop-dead gorgeous Argentinian/Vietnamese/Namibian women who love bad jokes have more or less the entire male population to pick from? If you're not scoring 80%+ on what women are interested in, then there's not much point in presuming you're entitled to expect any woman you date should be scoring 80%+ on your scale.

Excellent point.

Legs.Eleven

Whenever I hear about fellas using a number system to rate humans, the first thing that enters my head is "Rain Man". The thought doesn't exactly get me hot and bothered so I can't imagine what a woman who would rate "10" on your scale who has the choice of most men would think.

Zombienosh

The Backwards Man wrote: »

I'm sure some people don't like me, I'm sure some despise me, doesn't bother me a bit. But people who rate people like they would grade vegetables make my blood boil.

OMG....

People grade vegetables?

biko

Overly picky? Indeed!
Particularly when you make :eek: at people "settling". You don't even know the first thing about them.
How about you just leave other people alone and focus on your own happiness?

maryk123

What age are you as a matter of interest and what would you score yourself. I have many friends now that are moving on in age and would kill for a partner to share life with. They have no, kids friends have moved on and they are not truly happy. I don't think anyone here would say they hit 10/10 with their partner in any category but have fantastic partners and are not alone. Sometimes 10/10 isn't for you and maybe you need 5/10 in your categories as you can't reach the 10.

Rocket19

Lol. So you want a gorgeous looking girl, who laughs at your jokes, and doesn't need to be intelligent/ambitious?
Get a blow up doll? :P

Also, I hope the OP is Brad Pitt (in his younger years...yum) or some kind of variant, because otherwise the rating 'system' is a utterly laughable.

eeeee

MonstaMash wrote: »

OP, you're not over picky...you're just a wanker :eek:

^^^^ This.
Your 'system' is the biggest load of ****e i have ever come across.
Stick with it though, at least you won't be inflicting yourself on anyone else!

biko

Bungarra wrote: »

I think I'd rather be permanently alone than settle with someone I'm not attracted to/bores me.

This is true imo, if you don't find someone who is right for you then waiting would be better than being with someone "just because".
There's someone out there for everyone.

Wibbs

The Backwards Man wrote: »

What's with this rating people craic, it's fcuking disgusting imo. If you like someone you like them, if you don't you don't. End of.

Well to be fair we all "rate" people, he's just stuck a scale on it and got anal about the whole thing(far more common among men). Like/dislike is based on an internal rating system and there are definable reasons why they tick one box or other for you. On the pair bonding front the majority of people tend to end up with about the same level of attractiveness as they present themselves, so an "8" will tend to be with another "8" and a "5" with a "5".

For all the whining from men about women having more power in this choice, men actually have more leeway. Men can earn attractiveness by social advancement, whether that be through the arts or business or even war in some cultures and times. So if a bloke who is pretty much a "5" ends up in a famous(even locally) rock band he can move up the scale. Wealth and notoriety add bonus points too(complete feckin loons on death row usually have full mailbags from female admirers). Men also have a wider reproductive window age wise too. At least ten years extra.

So lads quit your bellyaching. If you can't get a woman, the problem is you, not them.

Legs.Eleven

Wibbs wrote: »

Well to be fair we all "rate" people, he's just stuck a scale on it and got anal about the whole thing(far more common among men). Like/dislike is based on an internal rating system and there are definable reasons why they tick one box or other for you. On the pair bonding front the majority of people tend to end up with about the same level of attractiveness as they present themselves, so an "8" will tend to be with another "8" and a "5" with a "5".

For all the whining from men about women having more power in this choice, men actually have more leeway. Men can earn attractiveness by social advancement, whether that be through the arts or business or even war in some cultures and times. So if a bloke who is pretty much a "5" ends up in a famous(even locally) rock band he can move up the scale. Wealth and notoriety add bonus points too(complete feckin loons on death row usually have full mailbags from female admirers). Men also have a wider reproductive window age wise too. At least ten years extra.

So lads quit your bellyaching. If you can't get a woman, the problem is you, not them.

Women have make up, short skirts, low cut tops and heels. Incredible how one or a combination of these things can make on a night out.

Bungarra

Wow... Massive amount of negativity towards me today... Luckily I half expected it so I'm not too upset. I thought I'd find a few more like minded (normal) people though. After hours do get angry pretty easily don't they!

People are getting hung up on the rating thing... I never actually rate them in my head. It's just to illustrate my point and preferences. I don't think anything I've said is way off the mark... Everybody has different preferences.

Helen and Anne are not equal though like people seem to be suggesting. Helen is hot, easy to talk to, and a Canadian Inuit so we have funny conversations about our different cultures. Anne is a neighbour I grew up with who is semi-attractive, the conversation is boring and she doesn't get on with my friends. Those women are not equal! But yet some people would settle for Anne, I just want Helen!

I'm in the 25-30 age bracket for those of you insinuating I'm some kind of child. I've a decent job and am not the "wanker" people want to paint me as. Everybody has preferences in women, some people just settle because they're scared to be alone/are needy. I'm not saying I'm Brad Pitt like someone suggested. Nor the best conversationalist. Nor am I lots of other things. There's millions of quality women out there who'd suit me better than some of the women I've happened across over the past few years. Probably a few times I've found one with potential who's shot me down. Fine. I'm happier single than with someone I'm not suited. Lots of people I know aren't.

Also... I'm not hated in real life as I seem to be here so I'm going to bring this up in conversation tonight, I don't think it'll go down as lead balloonishly as it did here though because the people I'll be speaking to are unlikley to be as uptight and angry.

Geomy

Bungarra wrote: »

I've come to the conclusion over the past 3 years that I'm overly picky with women and will probably end up alone until I get old(er) and desperate.

I have a rating system for attraction that goes something like this:
PLUS 1-10 for physical appearance
PLUS 1-5 bonus points for nationality (the more culturally different the better)
PLUS 1-10 for sense of humor (laughing at my crap jokes)
MINUS 1-10 points for immature/stupid people

I've found a 20+ once probably and i had her for a while then lost her to circumstance but I think I still plan on getting her back at some stage. Where i am right for the past couple of years doesn't really lend itself to high point scorers.

The amount of people I see settling for 5-10 pointers is probably 80+%. :eek: I think I'd rather be permanently alone than settle with someone I'm not attracted to/bores me.

Discuss my (or your own similar) issues here please.

Why don't you put up your photo and credentials here, and we'll all give you a vote :-D

Wibbs

Oh sure the ladies are masters of disguise on that front and that stuff does tweak a "rating" and certainly widens the reproductive age thing a few years, but nothing like social power in a bloke. If there was ever an argument that female physical attractiveness wasn't that important the fashion industry blows that clean out of the water. Now men do buy into fashion, but not nearly to the same degree(and social status is a lot of it), nor to the same degree of discomfort and impracticality often attached to hair, high heels, tight clothing etc.

Femme_Fatale

Bungarra wrote: »

I thought I'd find a few more like minded (normal) people though.

Your take outlined in your opening post is definitely not normal - soz.

If you encounter a woman you like, then try making a go of it. End of. No need to be over-thinking things and trying to work out what box she fits into. She's a person, not a doll/element of a mathematical formula ("I had a 20 and I'm working on getting her back" - lol; really does seem like one of them life-like dolls).

Of course we all have preferences, nobody's disputing that - but we certainly don't all use a weird formula like you do in your opening post.

Bungarra

Wibbs wrote: »

Well to be fair we all "rate" people, he's just stuck a scale on it and got anal about the whole thing(far more common among men). Like/dislike is based on an internal rating system and there are definable reasons why they tick one box or other for you. On the pair bonding front the majority of people tend to end up with about the same level of attractiveness as they present themselves, so an "8" will tend to be with another "8" and a "5" with a "5".

For all the whining from men about women having more power in this choice, men actually have more leeway. Men can earn attractiveness by social advancement, whether that be through the arts or business or even war in some cultures and times. So if a bloke who is pretty much a "5" ends up in a famous(even locally) rock band he can move up the scale. Wealth and notoriety add bonus points too(complete feckin loons on death row usually have full mailbags from female admirers). Men also have a wider reproductive window age wise too. At least ten years extra.

So lads quit your bellyaching. If you can't get a woman, the problem is you, not them.

I think for future correspondence on this subject the angry people should just speak to the good Mr. Wibbs here, he explains it in a less offensive way than I can.

Wibbs

Bungarra wrote: »

Helen and Anne are not equal though like people seem to be suggesting. Helen is hot, easy to talk to, and a Canadian Inuit so we have funny conversations about our different cultures. Anne is a neighbour I grew up with who is semi-attractive, the conversation is boring and she doesn't get on with my friends. Those women are not equal! But yet some people would settle for Anne, I just want Helen!

Seems perfectly fine to me. Why would anyone go out with an "Anne" as you describe her?

Also... I'm not hated in real life as I seem to be here so I'm going to bring this up in conversation tonight, I don't think it'll go down as lead balloonishly as it did here though because the people I'll be speaking to are unlikley to be as uptight and angry.

It was the opening rating stuff that will set cats among pigeons. Understandable, though the fact is we all rate people, especially potential romantic partners, it's just we don't like to see it written down as a balance sheet sorta thing.

I did say earlier that this is more likely to be a man thing. Thinking more on it a fair few women I've known did similar. They didn't use 1-10 scales, but definitely had set criteria and were happy to express them and some were just as daft as blokes who fed into the 1-10 scale. With some after hearing of their criteria for a suitable man it was all I could do to not hand them a few cats, because that was their future if they were that bloody picky.