I voted for...
4-6 your average Joe/Jane ; so in a basic sense... without the details, I see myself more in the Average range but closer to Above Average than Below Average.
some thoughts...
While I consider myself more in the average range, I see myself on the higher side of average as I can tell my looks are 'decent enough', but I wish I was more comfortable around people and had good social skills as that's my main detractor as without those your pretty much screwed even if you got above average looks etc. hell, I suspect even the reverse of that is also true in that someones looks might be fairly average-ish (maybe even low average or thereabouts) but have good social skills etc which helps compensate for their lack of looks and end up doing better with the opposite sex because of that even though someone might be a bit better looking on the surface than they are etc. I am sure you get the general idea here.
but anyways, given the OP's scale I see myself as a 6/10(high-average), I can't be lower than a 5/10(mid-average). even leaving room for error, between a 4-7/10 seems very likely because I know I am not below average in looks and I can just tell I am not to that more higher-up range for sure which is why I figure I would be a 7/10 AT BEST(like being generous) and a 4/10 AT WORST(like trying to go against me) as I would be pretty surprised if I was wrong on that claim, but I think a 6/10-ish(at least a 5/10) is most likely.
it's not difficult for me to find another guy who I can tell is higher than me in overall looks dept but at the same time I think I top a fair portion to (or at the least... it's seems like it's debatable either way). but at the same time you see those occasional couples where either the female or male seems to be noticeably higher up the looks chain than the other and your wondering what the higher-up-the-looks-chain person see's in the other one. but who knows, maybe in these cases it's simply something about their personality etc, like they just seem to click, more than just looks thing etc.
p.s. another thing... if someone were to make a survey about a random female or males looks and asked them to rate them on a scale of 1 through 10 (gauging things based roughly on my scale below), I think they would generally need to keep things limited to males judging the females and the females judging the males as this would likely keep people from being jealous of others and then giving them really low scores even though they are not being honest which would skew things. because I am confident that if you let anyone vote there would be some, especially those who's looks are so-so at best, will probably be jealous of someone who might be above average (or higher) (hell, maybe even of average people) and then give them really low scores just in a attempt to bring that other person down and sadly, they would not even admit they where doing this either or might not even honestly be able to see it even when they are. sort of like how some people are blind in that they think of themselves as a decent person when they might be worse than most people etc. but I suspect that's probably the case more often than not as pride can blind people quite a bit to the truth.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Basically I would convert the OP's scale about like this (assuming no in-between scores)...
9's and 10's = cream of the crop/elite
8/10 = well above average
7/10 = above average
---------------------
6/10 = high average
5/10 = mid average
4/10 = low average
---------------------
3/10 = below average
---------------------
2/10 = pretty bad
1/10 = straight up ugly
or maybe a little more simplified (but with a little details in the Average score section)....
5/5 = Top Notch
4/5 = Above Average
3.5/5 = High Average
3/5 = Mid Average
2.5/5 = Low Average
2/5 = Below Average
1/5 = Ugly
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
to make some more comments...
it's not that often I see someone and think "Damn, they are ugly!" (i.e. like stand out in a negative way) but it has happened before (there is just one person I remember when I visited Florida (back in July/Aug 2011) in a local store there who managed to pull this off that comes to mind). with that said, I do see a fair amount of people who you can tell are basically more in the below average area (maybe a lower average or so AT BEST).
also, for some people who might be forced into lower standards because of their lack of looks... even below average-ish people might start to look decent to them I suspect. but regardless, it's not like any of us can do anything about it as your dealt the hand your dealt, be it good or bad, and that's that.
but I will say this... as a general rule, while looks are not everything they are obviously a factor to some degree. but with that said, once someones looks reach a certain level, which ain't difficult to achieve, it's more of a warmth etc they give off that makes them attractive overall. like for example, to use my cream-of-the-crop level example... in trying my best to be objective on what's considered roughly the top-to-the-bottom with more of that mainstream/model type of view point I think one could say that there are women higher-up-the-chain than my clear #1 which is Vera Farmiga (to me she pretty much stands alone at THE top overall (only Kari Byron can even challenge her) as she's the gold standard for 10/10 for me as those 'good looking models' can't touch her overall). but to me there is simply no one more overall attractive than Vera Farmiga, even though trying my best to strictly look at things from a surface looks perspective, I could easily understand if someone argues you could go higher. but in general for me... someones overall attractiveness is not based strictly on surface looks as there are some women you can tell are easily above average on surface looks but that there is something missing from them which makes them drop off in their overall attractiveness quite a bit because of that and places them more in the average-ish range because of it.
but with all of that said... I think who's 'good looking' is still subjective on some level because we all probably have different standards of what's a 10/10 or 9/10 and so on but I think using that general mainstream/model variation as the 9's and 10's and then working your way down from there is probably a good general guideline for someones surface looks trying to look at things from a objective standpoint. so because it seems many who are closer to that more model looking level will probably have more wide appeal amongst a wide range of people, on average, than someone who's lower than those standards even though that won't always be true for everyone. but if you base things on 'majority opinion' as to what's correct then what I am saying here is basically true. I am sure you get the gist
another thing that comes to mind is... how we seem to have better days then others. I suspect when you feel more confident and just seem happy, others can see that project from you which might raise your level of attractiveness a bit.
another thing that comes to mind is... someones age which is generally a factor because while I can't speak for everyone unless your one of those people who's fairly immune to aging once you get to a certain age your looks are going to fizzle which I would say, being generous, 50 something is about the limit here as 20's/30's/40's one can still be going strong but 50's starts to push things a bit, but it's not a stretch for someone to stand out here still, and beyond that it's probably pretty safe to say one is out of their prime looks.
another thing... just in terms of pictures, they can't really give someone a accurate assessment of someones overall attractiveness. plus, I think some people are more photogenic than others are to as I am confident there are some people who I might find attractive who might generally not take good photo's. just looking at myself, I think my sister takes generally better photo's than I do even though I do have some I think are decent of myself here and there.
another thing... I think how one dresses can generally help out to as if someone dresses kind of like a slob (and the like) that definitely has to have a negative effect on there overall attractiveness. so I would try to keep a decent image here even though you don't have to overdo it or anything. basically just dress presentable in general as this I would have to assume would increase your odds a bit.
another thing... I am 38 year old male, ill be 39 later this year. maybe it's me, but I think females with a bit of age on them are generally more attractive than those really young types. but it might be partially because of the way they act as those who are quite young tend to be generally immature and act like kids etc as that's kind of why I figure as a general guideline one is best staying to those within 6-7 years either way of their own age as I figure going much outside of that and they probably start to become a part of a different generation and will effect things. like might not be on the same page as much in general. like those in relationships with a parent level age gap (or so) are a joke as I can't see many of those relationships lasting as I figure even a decade or so is pushing it as that right there is already about a half generation as I figure one generation would be roughly 20 years apart.
Nora Really?
because while that can be true for some I would think there are plenty around that age that still look REALLY young. so unless someone has had a hard life etc I would think the whole 'lines under eyes' (and the like) would be more of a 30 something or older thing but more into the 40's before they start to become more obvious when looking at a typical 20 somethings general skin.
p.s. just looking at myself in this regard... ill be 39 years old later this year and when looking at myself closer in the mirror I can tell my skin is starting to age some (as you can see a little lines etc) but it's still far from old looking. but overall I am not worried about it really as I can tell they would have little effect on my attractiveness towards a female as they(my wrinkles) are not really that noticeable and clearly some wrinkles won't have that much of a negative effect on ones overall attractiveness simply because reversing the situation in how I see females that would apply to as if your attractive, your attractive and if your not, your not in a basic sense.
Agreed.
because 50 something ain't too old but by 70 your pretty much old and if your doing okay-ish here that's probably pretty good really.
hell, if your 70 and average-ish... that probably means your 'above average' if you consider the age bracket etc. or at the least were probably above average (maybe higher) when you where younger.
Plastic surgery is Thumbs Down in my book. that stuff just makes people look more fake. I would rather have someones looks fade a bit then risk that crap. hell, even though there may be some occasions where it can be okay-ish, the problem is, is that people don't know when to stop and inevitably turns into a bad thing. overall, screw plastic surgery outside of cases where someone might truly need it say they where in a bad accident and they need it to piece there face back together half way decently.
about that general 'soul' comment... I would not be surprised if that's some of it. like someones attractiveness, or lack of it, is a effect they project towards others by the state of their soul as some people end up being ugly by the way they act etc (like if they are always negative etc etc) and others end up better because of that something positive they give off (as some people tend to give off a positive vibe/glow etc).
There is that stereotype again. but, as I would assume you already know, regardless if that's a positive or negative, you clearly have to have more than a body part going for you otherwise there would be no chance of any real lasting relationship. like those who are younger probably see more of the physical 'attributes' and the like on the opposite sex for what's "hot" etc but as you get a bit older you can start to see what you truly like and that tends to be more lasting.
outrider127 Yeah, that's probably a decent measurement as if you get comments like that here and there chances are you got to be on the 'better half'* at the least.
but just from your own perspective... it probably also depends on what you think of those giving the comments to. like if you think someone is attractive who gives the comment then in your own mind you will likely take those of more worth than if someone said that to you who you personally don't think is attractive. but I guess the main thing is... as long as those giving the comments to you are at least average-ish or better in your eyes then those comments are worth something.
* = 'better half' as in if we split females into two groups, lets say the Thumbs Up(better half) and Thumbs Down(lower half) groups. the same can be applied to males.
Toasted Cheese Good point. but just to make some comments...
maybe those 'stunner' types find it frustrating like you say especially if they are being hit on by lots of people all of the time as they probably get tired of it if it happens TOO much. or who knows, maybe there looks are so good that the opposite effect might happen in that no one approaches them because they feel they are out of their league (even if they might not be).
Exactly.
that's why I would be quite surprised if my #1 (Vera Farmiga) ever changes because she just glows and I can tell it's not based on her surface looks. she's been my clear #1 for about 9 years now and I can honestly say she's the most attractive person I ever laid eyes on as I always like to refer to her as 'the anomaly of nature' as she's just not supposed to be THAT attractive to me but she is
deembastille Agreed.
