The Attractiveness Scale from the Female POV

by User Submitted

Submitted by reader “girl”

In response to the original The Attractiveness Scale which broke down all man to woman (M2W) relationtships, reader “girl” (of Market Clearing Attractivness fame) has countered by also reducing all woman to man (W2M) relationships into a simple easy-to-follow chart with a distinct NY bias. We endorse all attempts to simplify all complicated human interactions into charts and numbers. Especially when they are dead on accurate.*

*Except of course, with respect to our staff. We are not reduceable to simple easy-to-follow charts. We’re deep and complex, but also sensitive, but also still masculine and would make great fathers in addition to great providers. And we would never frequent high price hookers, except for special occasions like “Saturdays”.

Ad Sense Ad Sense


  1. MarketNeutral
    March 12th, 2008 | 10:01 am

    Shouldn’t this be a 3d chart with a third “richness factor” axis?

    Or only a “richness factor” axis…

    Also, they’re hiring metrosexual bankers in NY now?
    No wonder the banking sector is going down the pan.

  2. a girl, but not 'girl'
    March 12th, 2008 | 10:34 am

    ‘Unsure as to whether you are gay’ should encompass a much bigger area.

  3. To The Hilt
    March 12th, 2008 | 10:41 am

    my question is why does the guy you want to marry lie between gay, and maybe gay?

    Also, I can’t find myself on that chart. I feel like I should be somewhere around the O in metrosexual, but I’m fairly confident that term doesn’t apply to me.

  4. Sean
    March 12th, 2008 | 11:17 am

    That spell checkers do not acknowledge the validity of “metrosexual” means that all is still right in the world.

  5. March 12th, 2008 | 11:29 am

    We have made your comment obsolete with the power of digital reality.

  6. March 12th, 2008 | 12:08 pm

    haha love the post script, naturally.

    @ To the Hilt,

    There’s reason behind the madness. The ambiguous gay isn’t dumb- he knows everyone thinks that of him, so he’ll either regale you with fake tales of his sexual eploits (ad nauseum) or overcompensate with homophobic tendencies (so uncool these days). The guy in the middle is money because he has nothing to prove, plus he’s attractive and nice.

    @ girl who isn’t me but is a girl nonetheless:

    I’ll def take that into consideration.

  7. Sir Charge
    March 12th, 2008 | 12:46 pm

    If I fall in the ‘screwed if he doesn’t have the money’ region (hypothetically), I have nothing to gain by being nicer and will not leave a tip at lunch (hypothetically).

  8. The Fox
    March 12th, 2008 | 1:13 pm

    This is a thing of beauty (as is the post script). I really enjoy the fact that the only profession is banking. Interestingly enough, I work in banking and am also a girl. I can confirm where the men on the scale are by looking at my office and seeing hoards of undatable, unattractive loosers.

  9. Anal_yst
    March 12th, 2008 | 1:36 pm

    By my calculations, >50% of Gays are considering a future Senatorial campaign…

  10. Anal_yst
    March 12th, 2008 | 2:21 pm

    Before anyone lambasts me, that’s supposed to be ~<50%, butt still…

  11. null set
    March 13th, 2008 | 1:48 am

    girl – where did 1-2 fall on the chart

  12. Gin&Tonic
    March 14th, 2008 | 10:49 am

    I still subscribe to the ladder theory ( I don’t like how the ahole factor doesn’t really factor into this at all.

  13. Anal_yst
    March 14th, 2008 | 1:24 pm

    Agreed with Gin & Tonic

    Ladder Theory is lb for lb the most accurate theory in the history of science ever of all time

  14. Jimmy
    March 22nd, 2008 | 2:21 pm

    Short female POV, duh

  15. Jimmy
    March 22nd, 2008 | 2:27 pm

    Short the female POV, duh

  16. JRV
    July 9th, 2010 | 1:24 pm

    If this truly is a NYC female-POV then the lower axis should replace ‘Nice’ factor with ‘Money/Earnings power’