![]() |
|
#1
|
|||
|
![]() very nice Nilbog.
| ||
|
#2
|
|||
|
![]() I was in the process of until you digressed for 3 pages to make a pendantic, childish point. Now I'm more interested in:
Why you calibrate your hotness scale by scoping the women of Walmart. Since you say the scale is fuckable only, why you consider the following women to be THREES. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.] | ||
|
#3
|
|||
|
![]() The scale isn't fuckable only. Thats what other people said. I consider my scale a scale of hotness. Fuckable on my scale would be 7+.
| ||
|
#4
|
|||
|
![]() See, I would consider fuckable at 4. And those big wemon a few posts up at a 1. Because I put super models with no flaws at 10.
And I would have only slept with a few women if I would only date 7/8+. | ||
|
#5
|
||||
|
![]() Quote:
And alternatively, my 3 is your .75, and my 1 is your .25. | |||
|
#6
|
|||
|
![]() This thread has shown me that males and their scales are very very silly
__________________
♥T R A L I N A 52 Druid | ♥P I M E N T O 29 Paladin | ♥C E R E N N A 52 Vicar
| ||
|
#7
|
||||
|
![]() Quote:
That being said, ye old ladder theory gives a decent abstraction. What I have noticed is that my "would actively like to fuck" category gets a hell of a lot bigger in my late 20s. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.] [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.] [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.] http://www.laddertheory.com/ | |||
|
#8
|
|||
|
![]() what a total crock of shit
| ||
|
#9
|
|||
|
![]() Nilbog you slut!
| ||
|
#10
|
|||
|
![]() Well, maybe not "count for more" depending on how you look at it.
| ||
|
![]() |
|
|