ITT, we shallowly objectify other people by discussing their appearance.

Carlos wrote:

Space wrote:
She definitely has a nicer ass than either of the Indigo Girls. So there's that.

Picking up conversation about in the proper venue. Definitely a solid 9 out of 10. Hotchimama!

Here I thought you were talking about Joanna Gruesome and I was a little surprised

cute…but I'm thinking 7-8 on my scale

You may not be capturing her [ahem] best side.

relaxer, to the rescue.

I'm like Oskar Schindler in this thread

Relaxer wrote:
I'm like Oskar Schindler in this thread

You've certainly brought happiness and renewed vitality to my circumcized member!

In retrospect, this was a great thread. I don't know why we let it die off. Let's shallowly objectify Anna Kendrick. At first blush, I'd probably give her a solid 8 or 9 but then I realize I'm totally taking her personality into account and not fully shallowly objectify her. She sort of has a rat face. Probably have to dock her a few points. Solid 7 though I still think. Thoughts?

Julian, wrote:
In retrospect, this was a great thread. I don't know why we let it die off. Let's shallowly objectify Anna Kendrick. At first blush, I'd probably give her a solid 8 or 9 but then I realize I'm totally taking her personality into account and not fully shallowly objectify her. She sort of has a rat face. Probably have to dock her a few points. Solid 7 though I still think. Thoughts?

How's this?

When I was single and younger, there were two categories. Those good enough to hit, and those good enough to possibly spend the rest of my life with. I think she would be on the border of those two categories for me. The fact that she's only 5'2" is a minus.

Space wrote:
I think she would be on the border of those two categories for me. The fact that she's only 5'2" is a minus.

See, I kind of like that. Sub 5' gets weird but 5'1"-5'3" is probably my ideal.

Let's get some pics up in here:

Kat Dennings. I can't get quite a good feed on her. I always get roped into watching 2 Broke Girls whenever I come across it on TV but I believe it's solely based on her cleavage. The show is God awful. AWFUL. But…. I always end up watching it just to stare at Kat Dennings… but I find her annoying and almost unattractive…. I can't explain it.

DeathFromAbove1979 wrote:
Kat Dennings. I can't get quite a good feed on her. I always get roped into watching 2 Broke Girls whenever I come across it on TV but I believe it's solely based on her cleavage. The show is God awful. AWFUL. But…. I always end up watching it just to stare at Kat Dennings… but I find her annoying and almost unattractive…. I can't explain it.

I hate her whole look. She gets a 3 in the Julian objectification score.

I feel like she's pretty average looking but I can't stop staring at her. I want to give her a 4-5, but I think she's more a high 6 if not a 7.

And I can't really explain why.

Julian, wrote:

DeathFromAbove1979 wrote:
Kat Dennings. I can't get quite a good feed on her. I always get roped into watching 2 Broke Girls whenever I come across it on TV but I believe it's solely based on her cleavage. The show is God awful. AWFUL. But…. I always end up watching it just to stare at Kat Dennings… but I find her annoying and almost unattractive…. I can't explain it.

I hate her whole look. She gets a 3 in the Julian objectification score.

So if we equate a 0 to 10 scale to percentiles, she's only better looking than 30% of the women in the world?

I think you better explain your objectification scale. If we're all using different scales, there's really no point in comparing our numbers.

Space wrote:

Julian, wrote:

DeathFromAbove1979 wrote:
Kat Dennings. I can't get quite a good feed on her. I always get roped into watching 2 Broke Girls whenever I come across it on TV but I believe it's solely based on her cleavage. The show is God awful. AWFUL. But…. I always end up watching it just to stare at Kat Dennings… but I find her annoying and almost unattractive…. I can't explain it.

I hate her whole look. She gets a 3 in the Julian objectification score.

So if we equate a 0 to 10 scale to percentiles, she's only better looking than 30% of the women in the world?

I think you better explain your objectification scale. If we're all using different scales, there's really no point in comparing our numbers.

You know, that's a fair point. I guess in my mind, 5 is "average" but I don't think there's a neat bell curve that splits all people up between the two sides. She might be a 4.5 by your scale.

Julian, wrote:

Space wrote:

Julian, wrote:

DeathFromAbove1979 wrote:
Kat Dennings. I can't get quite a good feed on her. I always get roped into watching 2 Broke Girls whenever I come across it on TV but I believe it's solely based on her cleavage. The show is God awful. AWFUL. But…. I always end up watching it just to stare at Kat Dennings… but I find her annoying and almost unattractive…. I can't explain it.

I hate her whole look. She gets a 3 in the Julian objectification score.

So if we equate a 0 to 10 scale to percentiles, she's only better looking than 30% of the women in the world?

I think you better explain your objectification scale. If we're all using different scales, there's really no point in comparing our numbers.

You know, that's a fair point. I guess in my mind, 5 is "average" but I don't think there's a neat bell curve that splits all people up between the two sides. She might be a 4.5 by your scale.

I always figured 5 was average.

Julian, wrote:

Space wrote:

Julian, wrote:

DeathFromAbove1979 wrote:
Kat Dennings. I can't get quite a good feed on her. I always get roped into watching 2 Broke Girls whenever I come across it on TV but I believe it's solely based on her cleavage. The show is God awful. AWFUL. But…. I always end up watching it just to stare at Kat Dennings… but I find her annoying and almost unattractive…. I can't explain it.

I hate her whole look. She gets a 3 in the Julian objectification score.

So if we equate a 0 to 10 scale to percentiles, she's only better looking than 30% of the women in the world?

I think you better explain your objectification scale. If we're all using different scales, there's really no point in comparing our numbers.

You know, that's a fair point. I guess in my mind, 5 is "average" but I don't think there's a neat bell curve that splits all people up between the two sides. She might be a 4.5 by your scale.

68.8 percent of Americans are overweight or obese. Are you saying she's less attractive than a fair share of porkers?

I mean I'd rate her as above average simply because she's not overweight. But perhaps weight carries a heavier weight for me than it does for you. (Not that I don't find some overweight women attractive, but it certainly lessens their score).

Space wrote:
68.8 percent of Americans are overweight or obese. Are you saying she's less attractive than a fair share of porkers?

I mean I'd rate her as above average simply because she's not overweight. But perhaps weight carries a heavier weight for me than it does for you. (Not that I don't find some overweight women attractive, but it certainly lessens their score).

68.8% of the world's population aren't overweight though. I agree with your general idea that the simple fact she's not a porker has to put her ahead of 99% of the porkers but I don't have good figures on how many porkers there are total.

Also, my personal rankings isn't an even distribution of scores. Way more 1s and 2s than 9s and 10s.

Julian, wrote:

Space wrote:
68.8 percent of Americans are overweight or obese. Are you saying she's less attractive than a fair share of porkers?

I mean I'd rate her as above average simply because she's not overweight. But perhaps weight carries a heavier weight for me than it does for you. (Not that I don't find some overweight women attractive, but it certainly lessens their score).

68.8% of the world's population aren't overweight though. I agree with your general idea that the simple fact she's not a porker has to put her ahead of 99% of the porkers but I don't have good figures on how many porkers there are total.

Also, my personal rankings isn't an even distribution of scores. Way more 1s and 2s than 9s and 10s.

This is starting to remind me of the latest Jim Jeffries Netflix special.

I see it as a bell curve with comparable number of 1/2 vs. 9/10.

Also, take into account age. Anna may only be in the 50th percentile for her age (higher? lower? I dunno), but she's definitely more attractive than most of the AARP-eligible people in the world, no? I guess it doesn't matter if you're implying  that most people in the world are below a 5.

I personally feel we're getting too caught up in the minutia when we could be posting pictures of people and shallowly objectifying them by discussing their appearance.