Two-Factor Attractiveness Scale (tool for men to assess women’s value)

The following is a summary of an attractiveness rating scale based on the two factors of sexual + pairbonding attractiveness, instead of the usual single rating factor of sexual attractiveness.


Freud/psychoanalysis: “What decides the purpose of life is simply the programme of the pleasure principle.”

Object relations psychology: “The primary motivational factors in one’s life are based on human relationships, rather than sexual or aggressive triggers.”

The above quotes imply two different kinds of female attractiveness for men, and a need for two separate rating scales: 1. sexual attractiveness, and 2. pairbonding attractiveness. The first rating is based purely on sexual provocation & attraction: body shape, boobs, hips, hair, cleavage, thighs & bedroom eyes, etc. The second rating implies the girl-next-door stereotype, more attractive for company, pair bonding and if desired, family. Rating a woman as  9/10 in sexual attractiveness is misleading as the only qualifier of a high quality partner, as she may be only 1/10 in the pairbonding attractiveness (or it may be the converse scores). Not that I’m into rating women, but for those who are I recommend using both scales mentioned here and combining the scores to get a more accurate, overall rating.

Two-Factor Attractiveness Scale

A two-factor attractiveness scale would work like this, and examples are arbitrary, e.g.

Brittany Venti:
5/10 for sexual attractiveness
0/10 for pairbonding attractiveness.
Score: 5|0

Mikhaila Peterson:
5/10 for sexual attractiveness
1/10 for pairbonding attractiveness
Score: 5|1

Pearl Davis:
5/10 for sexual attractiveness
7/10 for pairbonding attractiveness
Score: 5|7

Nina-Marie Daniele:
7/10 Sexual attractiveness
5/10 Pairbonding attractiveness
Score: 7|5

Lauren Chen:
7/10 for sexual attractiveness
6/10 for pairbonding attractiveness
Score: 7|6

Amber Heard:
9/10 Sexual attractiveness
-5/10 Pairbonding attractiveness
Score: 9|-5


The two attractiveness scales are based on two different human motivations mentioned above, as also outlined by Evolutionary Psychology scholar Steve Stewart-Williams who writes, quote:

“Human males have a number of well-documented, species-typical mate preferences. These include preferences for physical traits such as a low waist-to-hip ratio, facial and bodily symmetry, neoteny, and youthfulness. They also include preferences for psychological traits such as intelligence, emotional stability, and sexual fidelity.”1

Notice in this quote the first group of physiological traits match sexual attractiveness, and the latter traits match pairbonding attractiveness. Sexual attractiveness is well understood, however pairbonding attractiveness requires a little more explanation: it is the ability of a woman to cultivate a successful, long term bond with a man, which includes traits such as emotional stability, sexual fidelity, low/no body count (signifying commitment to pairbonding), low narcissism, intelligence, modesty, and ability to positively work through relationship issues.

The list of traits and attributes belonging respectively to sexual and pairbonding attractiveness could be expanded into a very long list, and I do hope that someone bothers to take up that task and have some fun with it.

Lastly, although described in terms of rating women’s attractiveness, the scale could be equally adapted to rate male attractiveness/value. The scale is not copyrighted and is free to use.

November 15, 2023



[1] The Ape That Thought It Was a Peacock: Does Evolutionary Psychology Exaggerate Human Sex Differences?

Leave a comment

%d bloggers like this: