Café Cleopatra thread poses interesting question.
I see folks talking about x/10 or x/5 all the time. In the Café Cleopatra thread Carla said that she thinks of herself a 6/10. How do you see this numbering scheme working.
Does emotion, lust or caring enter into it for you guys? I am intereseted as one of my favourite dancers doesn't have the typical magazine look, but the way she walks, talks and general body language and appearance, I would say she is at least a 9.5. Much prettier that Bo Dereck at 10.
I maybe talking smack this late at night, but seems to me that x/10 is very subjective.
I rate myself 6/10 for a person that has seen me walking around at a strip club or dance on the stage. Or the if same person has talked to me but had no emotions toward me. More like a physical scale of dancers of Montreal, something like that.. sometimes I think of myself as lower that 6/10. Sometimes I wake up feeling like 2/10 or 4/10. Never higher than 6 though. Call it low self esteem..
LOL. 2/10 really? See subjectivity at work.
As I noted in a previous post, I just spent 12+ hours in a SC called Barb's here in Ott. It is really funny and interesting to note that a lot of the dancers there when they left, tried to dress down for the norm's out there while they went home.
I don't know about other guys, but while they did look shorter (minus the Krazy platfroms the have to wear) they actually looked hotter. Some of these women , to me at least gained at minimum 1/10 if not a lot more.
Case in point. As Mikya(?) was leaving, she talked to me about the platform shoes / boots that they must wear. She was going on about how short she was. Of course I'm gonna say, "sure, sure, don't worrry about it." Then she runs off and changes. She comes back and I didn't even recognise her! She's like 5 foot nothin', dressed in jeans and tight T. So I told her that yeah she was short, but that she looked even hotter than when she was wearing the required stripper gear. She didn't even understand what I meant.
I will miss her and her friends as I am officaly retired from SC's. A lot of fun to be had at SJ's.
I should rephrase myself, I feel like 6/10 in the clubs like Cleopatra or Caleche. In a club like Downtown I would've felt probably like .5/10!
I started to rate myself at 17 when I fell in love with a guy at school. He told me 'I'm not looking for a girlfriend right now. Maybe if you were hot I would've done something.' Then I asked him to rate me and he said that about half of the girls are hotter than me. I was very angry! Then he said that it is still a pretty good rating.. Then I agreed and became more realistic about it..
When I just started to work at Cleos at 18 I very soon came up with a dancer-success formula for Cleos,
Success = Looks x Mileage^2
While in the other clubs the formula could easily be
Success = Looks^2 x Mileage
In a non-contact club it is probably,
Success = Looks
I still find these formulae pretty accurate!
High mileage in my Oh So Humble Opinion means that there is something worth using/taking/knowing. Low mileage means the opposite, avoid! At my advanced age of 40 something, wrinkles and freckels are really badges of honour.
You may not agree, but then you'd be wrong
From experience, I learned that often, the worst peoples are the ones who think the highest of themself. Nothing worst that a "real babe" who's aware of her look and use it to her advantage in order exploit others! Those usually think everybody should be at their feets and will get nasty if you don't play along.
Originally Posted by Carla
On the other hand, I've met a lot of "real babe" who tought they were average and they all made-up for it with intelligence, friendliness, kindness and attentiveness. They were all way more interesting and fun to be with than any of the ones who knew they were "hot"! Their personality made them, in my eyes, even better looking than the hottest of the other woman around.
I agree with this 100%.
Originally Posted by Carla
In some club, part 1 is even Success = Look x Mileage^3
Repeat = attitude^3 x Look x (Mileage/2). (getting complicated!)
Got to be honest here, I go to SC to see good-looking ladies but, attitude is still a must. Looks will get the lady a dance or 2, attitude will keep me coming back. Mileage is icing on the cake: nice but not a must.
If the lady come to talk to me first and we can hold a good conversation for a while before thinking of dancing, then the attitude is what will get her a dance, even if her look were not going to do it before. Lots of those have been repeat for me.
Nothing is more of a turn-off than a cold-mechanical lap dance with almost no communication.
A girl who's sales pitch consist of walking to customers and just say " Hi, Wanna get a dance?" better forget me, no matter how good she look.
Last edited by metoo4; 09-12-2005 at 10:27 AM.
Carla, I have to say that I would rate you at least 7/10.
Originally Posted by metoo4
Now, back to the formula.. yes it is complicated thing.
Repeat = ( attitude^2 x Look x (body^2)/2 x (mileage^2)/3 x (no hustle for dances) x (no cigarette stealing) ) / (buy me a drink now otherwise I will start bitching)
Hahahaha, very amusing! I think some men express themselves much better in formulae. Now we finally understand each other! Now I know the the preference formulae of metoo4 and orallover. It would be easier if all men could have a formula like these in their profile!
By the way, in my formulae [I keep them simple for now],
Mileage = Personality + Service
Should I add anything else? I know personality doesn't fit too well but.. it is there for the sake of simplicity. I think most men value either personality or service or sometimes a bit of both..
Ratings that are based on looks should never take personality into the equation. I really do not like a x/10 based system. We used to rate dancers on a 100 point scale, 40 points for the face, 30 for breasts (natural only, enhanced can't score higher than 25) and 30 for legs/ass. One night at Supersexe we even had a couple of girls sitting with us rating other girls. Once you get to know someone all ratings go out the window because it's hard to be totally objective. And by the way....I've never seen a 10 or a 100 in my life. Not even in a magazine or on film. It's an unattainable goal, perfection does not exist in nature.
Thank you Oliver! Techman, you've never met an ugly woman in your life? Wow! Or you meant an ugly dancer? Maybe you're right if she was .5/10 she'd been soon out of business. But does this mean you are not repulsed by any dancers? That's nice.
I think when I'm in love the person easily becomes 10/10 and those magazines can only score at most 9.9/10 since the model is usually groomed up and is seen from her best angle! Film is a bit more truthful although I never found an actor or actress to be 100% attractive.
Carla the Believer in Perfection
Also Techman, if I read correctly, 30 for the breasts, 30 for the legs.. the waistline doesn't seem to fit anywhere. I like girls with a nice back, nice shoulders, nice stomach.. etc. These don't matter to you?
Breast-wise I think I'm the same as Oliver, breasts could be very small or not there for all I care..
Carla the Lover of Womens Body
I've seen many ugly women, and dancers, in my life but I've never seen a 10/10 or a 100/100. As far as repulsive is concerned, I have met some very beautiful women who I consider to be repulsive when you take their personality or lack of such into consideration.
When I said 30 for breasts, I should have said torso or from shoulders to buttocks, upper body...take your pick. Magazine photos are usually, if not always, photoshopped. In film, or television, people are always shot from their most flattering angle or with various filters or post production work. Case in point: the removal of Angelina Jolie's tattoos in most of her film roles.
I consider Angelina, Monica Bellucci and Jessica Alba to be three of the most beautiful women in film today and I would not consider any one of them to be a 10/10 or 100/100.
I totally agree with your above 3 choices in terms of today's most beautiful women, Techman, but seriously, you wouldn't give any of them a perfect score? Then who would you give a perfect score to, as one would be extremely hard-pressed to find women who are even more beautiful.
Originally Posted by Techman
I would not give a 10/10 to anyone. That would mean that they are perfect, the ultimate in beauty, and I do not think that this is possible. It is too subjective, we have all seen a woman we consider to be the most beautiful we've ever seen...at least until we see someone we think is more beautiful.
Carla a 10/10 in both mileage (for a downtown club) and personality. I feel Carla's looks are 7.5/10. I feel she has a cute kissable face (not that I ever kissed her) .Carla is very tall (5-8 or so) has nice perky breasts, and a cute ass. I won't discuss mileage in here since she is no longer at Cleo's.