Author: Peter Wright
The
following
is
a
summary
of
an
attractiveness
rating
scale
based
on
the
two
factors
of
sexual
+
pairbonding
attractiveness,
instead
of
the
usual
single
rating
factor
of
sexual
attractiveness.
Preamble
Freud/psychoanalysis: “What
decides
the
purpose
of
life
is
simply
the
programme
of
the
pleasure
principle.”
Object
relations
psychology: “The
primary
motivational
factors
in
one’s
life
are
based
on
human
relationships,
rather
than
sexual
or
aggressive
triggers.”
The
above
quotes
imply
two
different
kinds
of
female
attractiveness
for
men,
and
a
need
for
two
separate
rating
scales:
1.
sexual
attractiveness,
and
2.
pairbonding
attractiveness.
The
first
rating
is
based
purely
on
sexual
provocation
&
attraction:
body
shape,
boobs,
hips,
hair,
cleavage,
thighs
&
bedroom
eyes,
etc.
The
second
rating
implies
the
girl-next-door
stereotype,
more
attractive
for
company,
pair
bonding
and
if
desired,
family.
Rating
a
woman
as
9/10
in
sexual
attractiveness
is
misleading
as
the
only
qualifier
of
a
high
quality
partner,
as
she
may
be
only
1/10
in
the
pairbonding
attractiveness
(or
it
may
be
the
converse
scores).
Not
that
I’m
into
rating
women,
but
for
those
who
are
I
recommend
using
both
scales
mentioned
here
and
averaging
the
scores
to
get
a
more
accurate,
overall
rating.
Two-Factor
Attractiveness
Scale
A
two-factor
attractiveness
scale
would
work
like
this,
and
examples
are
arbitrary,
e.g.
Brittany
Venti:
5/10
for
sexual
attractiveness
1/10
for
pairbonding
attractiveness.
Average
score:
3/10
Mikhaila
Peterson:
5/10
for
sexual
attractiveness
2/10
for
pairbonding
attractiveness
Average
score:
3.5/10
Pearl
Davis:
5/10
for
sexual
attractiveness
7/10
for
pairbonding
attractiveness
Average
score:
6/10
Nina-Marie
Daniele:
7/10
Sexual
attractiveness
5/10
Pairbonding
attractiveness
Average
score:
6/10
Lauren
Chen:
7/10
for
sexual
attractiveness
6/10
for
pairbonding
attractiveness
Average
score:
6.5/10
Amber
Heard:
9/10
Sexual
attractiveness
0/10
Pairbonding
attractiveness
Average
score:
4.5/10
Comment
The
two
attractiveness
scales
are
based
on
two
different
human
motivations
mentioned
above,
as
also
outlined
by
Evolutionary
Psychology
scholar
Steve
Stewart-Williams
who
writes,
quote:
“Human
males
have
a
number
of
well-documented,
species-typical
mate
preferences.
These
include
preferences
for
physical
traits
such
as
a
low
waist-to-hip
ratio,
facial
and
bodily
symmetry,
neoteny,
and
youthfulness.
They
also
include
preferences
for
psychological
traits
such
as
intelligence,
emotional
stability,
and
sexual
fidelity.”1
Notice
in
this
quote
the
first
group
of
physiological
traits
match
sexual
attractiveness,
and
the
latter
traits
match
pairbonding
attractiveness.
Sexual
attractiveness
is
well
understood,
however
pairbonding
attractiveness
requires
a
little
more
explanation:
it
is
the
ability
of
a
woman
to
cultivate
a
successful,
long
term
bond
with
a
man,
which
includes
traits
such
as
emotional
stability,
sexual
fidelity,
low/no
body
count
(signifying
commitment
to
pairbonding),
low
narcissism,
modesty,
and
ability
to
positively
work
through
relationship
issues.
The
list
of
traits
and
attributes
belonging
respectively
to
sexual
and
pairbonding
attractiveness
could
be
expanded
into
a
very
long
list,
and
I
do
hope
that
someone
bothers
to
take
up
that
task
and
have
some
fun
with
it.
Lastly,
although
described
in
terms
of
rating
women’s
attractiveness,
the
scale
could
be
equally
adapted
to
rate
male
attractiveness/value.
The
scale
is
not
copyrighted
and
is
free
to
use.
November
15,
2023
Reference:
Original Story on AVFM
These stories are from AVoiceForMen.com.
(Changing the cultural narrative)