PDA

View Full Version : Life How Low On the Bo Derek Scale Would You Go?


Rain Man
07-31-2010, 09:11 PM
If you're not familiar with the Bo Derek scale, 10 is considered very, very attractive and 1 is considered very, very unattractive. Conventional wisdom places a woman of average attractiveness at a 5.

Assume that you're unattached, and that you're on a business trip. You stop at a local diner for a bite to eat, and are surprised when the waitress brings you over a free root beer. "This is compliments of that woman over there." (If you're inexplicably attracted to men, you may substitute 'man' for 'woman'.)

The root beer buyer then comes over to your table, sits down, and begins chatting with you. You may assume that her personality roughly coincides with her Derek rating (i.e., 10 has a great personality, 1 is uncouth, 5 is your typical female personality).

After 10 minutes of chatting, the root beer buyer confesses an instant attraction to you and would like you to visit her hotel room next door for some no-strings-attached mattress whitewater rafting. The person appears to be clean and disease-free.

Is there a level of attractiveness below which you would not venture, and would instead say 'thanks, but there's a really important episode of Sportscenter that I have to see'?

Gender-segmented poll to follow.

boogblaster
07-31-2010, 09:16 PM
had a few 5s usually while under the influance

Mecca
07-31-2010, 09:17 PM
Everyone has ventured under 5 before, they call that a slumpbuster.

teedubya
07-31-2010, 09:18 PM
I had a 6.5 and 5.5... but they were both at the same time... so that is 12.

listopencil
07-31-2010, 09:21 PM
Nope.

Mecca
07-31-2010, 09:23 PM
I had a 6.5 and 5.5... but they were both at the same time... so that is 12.

I never fucked a 10...but I fucked 5 2's.

listopencil
07-31-2010, 09:23 PM
While I'm waiting for you to finish your post let me elaborate. It is very, very rare that I find a woman so unattractive that I would refuse to have sex with her for that reason alone. Barely ever happens. Hypothetically speaking of course.

Bugeater
07-31-2010, 09:26 PM
I draw the line at non-mammals.

listopencil
07-31-2010, 09:27 PM
I draw the line at non-mammals.

Well, unless we're talking about alien women.

Rain Man
07-31-2010, 09:30 PM
While I'm waiting for you to finish your post let me elaborate. It is very, very rare that I find a woman so unattractive that I would refuse to have sex with her for that reason alone. Barely ever happens. Hypothetically speaking of course.

Interesting take on it.

I have a different view. For me, the thrill of the event isn't just the below-the-waist physical part, but there's also a key visual and psychological aspect. If I didn't get all three, I would politely decline, I think.

Maybe I could compromise pretty heavily on the pyschological part, I guess. If it was a total bimbo who offered the first two rewards, no problem.

Phobia
07-31-2010, 10:20 PM
I've only once ventured below a 5 and once below an 8. Of course my ex-wife is now about a -14 on any scale but she had a very short prime in her early-mid-20's.

T-post Tom
07-31-2010, 10:41 PM
<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/OA3CvUgzfc0&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/OA3CvUgzfc0&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

GoHuge
07-31-2010, 10:51 PM
I never ****ed a 10...but I ****ed 5 2's.Ranks 1-2 on originality scale.

Discuss Thrower
08-02-2010, 05:59 PM
It's not really a linear scale that I employ, but for the sake of the poll I voted six. But, I have different tastes when compared to everyone else so it's kind of pointless to compare. It's all a case by case basis, in addition to non-physical attractive markers like whorishness/bitchiness.

Sure-Oz
08-02-2010, 06:06 PM
Everyone has ventured under 5 before, they call that a slumpbuster.

Wrong

CoMoChief
08-02-2010, 06:08 PM
Everyone has ventured under 5 before, they call that a slumpbuster.

I call it Hog huntin'

kstater
08-02-2010, 06:10 PM
Does it have a wet vagina? Then the answer is yes.

BWillie
08-02-2010, 06:13 PM
Dude, girls really don't care about looks for long term relationships....probably not even for getting laid most of the time if they at least like the guy. If they are just drunk at the bar, then they are more inclined to try to just nail a hot guy because.

If you are like a 5 or above, you can score yourself a hot broad if the situation presents itself right. Have plenty of below average friends w/ hot wifes or long term GFs. I wonder how they do it

Bane
08-02-2010, 06:14 PM
5 plus or minus 2-3 and I'm down.:D

Pioli Zombie
08-02-2010, 06:34 PM
I draw the line at non-mammals.
You draw the line at non-little boys.

RJ
08-02-2010, 08:50 PM
She was a 3. A weak 3. Like if it was school she was a 3 minus. The bar was dark, it was closing time, there were tequila shots involved. She looked ok from across the bar. And she was so darned eager to please.

I swear, I've been around the block and back numerous times and nothing like that ever happpened before or since.

I was shocked the next day.

It was Vegas. I'm not making an excuse, but there you have it.

Extra Point
08-03-2010, 08:50 AM
7. I'm a philogonist.

Pants
08-03-2010, 09:01 AM
Everyone has ventured under 5 before, they call that a slumpbuster.

Negative, Ghostrider.

DaKCMan AP
08-03-2010, 09:03 AM
The fallacy of any rating scale is that a "5" to one person may be a "3" to someone else.

Additionally, as age of the individual doling out ratings increases, the relative strictness of scale seems to relax.

Mile High Mania
08-03-2010, 09:06 AM
Difficult to vote on something like this... it really depends on the girl. Some "low qualities" may not be as terrible as you think and negated by very "high qualities" elsewhere.