Have you ever had relations with a, "10"?

Yes I have

Ben Franklin's ghost wrote:

Sweet Nell Fenwick wrote:

Beauty is only a light switch away.

Because in every Animal that walks upright, the Deficiency of the Fluids that fill the Muscles appears first in the highest Part: The Face first grows lank and wrinkled; then the Neck; then the Breast and Arms; the lower Parts continuing to the last as plump as ever: So that covering all above with a Basket, and regarding2 only what is below the Girdle, it is impossible of two Women to know an old from a young one. And as in the dark all Cats are grey, the Pleasure of corporal Enjoyment with an old Woman is at least equal, and frequently superior, every Knack being by Practice capable of Improvement.

Almost threw up in my mouth.

Troll Hotel wrote:

Is the binary scale -10 through 10

Or 1 through 10

If you slept with her she would have to land north of 1 I guess

What? The binary scale is just 0 or 1. You recognize that objective rankings of beauty are worth diddly squat as long as you're attracted to the person. Sex is, let's be honest, not any better with a 10 than an 8 or a 7 or whatever your threshold for attraction is. There's a lot of other stuff going on.

big guy little wrote:

Then this juvenile site has the balls to publish a thread titled: "Why doesn't Jack Daniels post here anymore." Honest to f'n' Christ!

How do you know that wasn't Jack Daniels. You don't think he ever dated?

Sweet Nell Fenwick wrote:

Beauty is only a light switch away.

It's nice to still see the occasional glimmer of brilliance here on letsrun.

Flaga wrote:

Troll Hotel wrote:

Is the binary scale -10 through 10

Or 1 through 10

If you slept with her she would have to land north of 1 I guess

What? The binary scale is just 0 or 1. You recognize that objective rankings of beauty are worth diddly squat as long as you're attracted to the person. Sex is, let's be honest, not any better with a 10 than an 8 or a 7 or whatever your threshold for attraction is. There's a lot of other stuff going on.

I couldn't possibly feel any more sorry for you than I do after reading that.

Yes, how horrible my life is, now that I've had sex with plenty of people and realized that an objective beauty measurement doesn't have much to do with how good the sex is. O, woe is me, I rend my living flesh from my bones in lament.

JIM RYUN was 11.882 in '67 and 10.837 in '66. I have many VHS tape of him and use PAUSE and ZOOM feature often(!!!!).

We all know that foreplay is a big factor in sex and how great said sex can become. The more closer the woman is to your ideal of a ten is then the more pleasant and arousing the build up will be. Either you're cold in bed or you are a sex addict. Which is it?

dial it up wrote:

Flaga wrote:

What? The binary scale is just 0 or 1. You recognize that objective rankings of beauty are worth diddly squat as long as you're attracted to the person. Sex is, let's be honest, not any better with a 10 than an 8 or a 7 or whatever your threshold for attraction is. There's a lot of other stuff going on.

I couldn't possibly feel any more sorry for you than I do after reading that.

You clearly lack experience, otherwise you'd know he was right.

I consider myself to be a 10, but can't find anybody else that I would want to have a serious relationship with. I almost feel like I'm the 52-hertz whale. It kind of sucks because I feel like most people are intimidated by my looks and I hardly get approached unless I'm at a party/club (not the kind of girls you want to date). I've had attractive girls that were into me, but they're only I never really felt into it. It's coming to the point where I don't give a shit anymore and don't even try to go after girls and I won't let anybody have me unless I'm blackout drunk.

Troll Hotel wrote:

Is the binary scale -10 through 10

Or 1 through 10

If you slept with her she would have to land north of 1 I guess

Is this one of those Common Core Standards questions?

Ashgabat wrote:

I think I've only had 8.5's high. But they were consistent in that range. The lowest was like a 6. What say you?

I have had much bigger than 10.

You would be surprised what I can fit up my bung.

Wit 10 wrote:

dial it up wrote:

I couldn't possibly feel any more sorry for you than I do after reading that.

You clearly lack experience, otherwise you'd know he was right.

You both clearly lack the ability to get anyone other than an uggo or you wouldnt be so pathetic.

"Running is the same whether you run a 12:40 5k or a 19:40 5k" Give me a break.

dial it up wrote:

Wit 10 wrote:

You clearly lack experience, otherwise you'd know he was right.

You both clearly lack the ability to get anyone other than an uggo or you wouldnt be so pathetic.

"Running is the same whether you run a 12:40 5k or a 19:40 5k" Give me a break.

No, they're right.

I have been with something over 30 women that LR types would probably give 7-10, and how good the sex/experience was really wasn't connected to the "score" anyone would have given their appearance.

You'll get this when you get some real experience.

dial it up wrote:

Wit 10 wrote:

You clearly lack experience, otherwise you'd know he was right.

You both clearly lack the ability to get anyone other than an uggo or you wouldnt be so pathetic.

"Running is the same whether you run a 12:40 5k or a 19:40 5k" Give me a break.

See, here's what you're missing: Running a 12:40 is the same whether you have beautiful form or look like crap.

pattern emerging wrote:

dial it up wrote:

You both clearly lack the ability to get anyone other than an uggo or you wouldnt be so pathetic.

"Running is the same whether you run a 12:40 5k or a 19:40 5k" Give me a break.

No, they're right.

I have been with something over 30 women that LR types would probably give 7-10, and how good the sex/experience was really wasn't connected to the "score" anyone would have given their appearance.

You'll get this when you get some real experience.

So your entire sexual lifetime is a decent junior year and you feel the need to give opinion?

dial it up wrote:

pattern emerging wrote:

No, they're right.

I have been with something over 30 women that LR types would probably give 7-10, and how good the sex/experience was really wasn't connected to the "score" anyone would have given their appearance.

You'll get this when you get some real experience.

So your entire sexual lifetime is a decent junior year and you feel the need to give opinion?

in honor of a cutie from the past

I post the 99th

100 posts = A troll benchmark wrote:

dial it up wrote:

So your entire sexual lifetime is a decent junior year and you feel the need to give opinion?

in honor of a cutie from the past

http://41.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m06qfqIFn81r8kc8oo1_500.jpg

I post the 99th

I like the photo well enough, but I wouldn't say she is a "cutie" like you did. Who is that? Her name, please?