Calibration
In which a reader Asks the Sigma about a familiar celebrity figure
If Dan Bilzerians woman is an 8 then i have never seen >8.5. For calibration purposes what would you rate Margot Robbie?
Fair question. I would rate Margot Robbie a 7. She has a very pretty face combined with a very mediocre body. She’s both photogenic and likeable, and Hollywood does a good job presenting a very highly processed image of her, but she doesn’t have the facial bone structure of a true beauty and if she were to get at all overweight she would rapidly come to resemble a fairly average girl in Minnesota or Wisconsin circa 1980-1990. She’s cute and she’s pretty, but she isn’t beautiful. It’s her very attainability that is a significant part of her appeal.
Now, it’s understandable that some less sophisticated men unfamiliar with the structural details of female beauty might erroneously conclude that she’s a 10, because she does have some elite features, as can be seen in this picture.
She has a better profile than one might tend to assume from her front shots. But those cheekbones are painted on.
This is probably the best picture I found to represent peak Margot Robbie. Here, one would be excused for thinking she’s a proper 9 at the least.
But as for the body, the description as mediocre might actually be a little too kind considering that she’s clearly in fairly optimal condition. Note that I did not cherry-pick a bad photo here. I simply searched “Margot Robbie bikini” and selected the article entitled “Margot Robbie shows off phenomenal figure in bikini.”
The phenomenal figure:
That’s not an elite body, that’s not a good body, that’s not even a local catalog model body. She’s not fat or out of shape, she’s just… a thick rectangle. Put 20 pounds on that and it’s what you’ll see waddling everywhere throughout the Mall of America every single day. It’s interesting to see the panoply of pictures from the Barbie promotional tour, as the various outfits are clearly designed to hide and otherwise minimize her bodily flaws.
Below is what a truly elite female face looks like. Margot Robbie’s face is a poor man’s alternative by comparison. And as the years will demonstrate, that bone structure doesn’t need to be painted on, but will actually become more pronounced over time.
Perfection isn’t common. There is a reason 10s are considered to be essentially mythic by most men. I’ve encountered very, very few in my lifetime, even with the good fortune to have grown up in a place and time where attractive women were relatively common.
And the transience of female beauty is such that even a 10 won’t stay at her peak for long. It is both their blessing and their curse. And yet, a 7 like Margot Robbie, even at her peak, can’t compete with a 10 in her 50s.
Keep in mind that if Hollywood thought they could convince the world that a 2 was a 10, they wouldn’t even hesitate to do so.
It is just me or Hollywood has been eschewing 10s for 8s, 7s and on some egregious cases even lower (think Zendaya or Rachel Zegler)?
Looks like Hollywood and the media in general have been doubling down on favoring Gammas sexual fantasies.
For an industry that have shown the world woman like Brooke Shields, Grace Kelly, Michelle Pfeiffer, Brigitte Bardot, Sophia Loren, it is pretty depressing to see so many plain janes sold as top shelf material.
It seems to me low status men tend to put roughly 10% of women into each of the number buckets while Vox and likely other high status men rate women on a Bell Curve, where a true 10 and a true 1 are extremely rare and most women are 4s-6s. Thinking about this, it makes sense that physical features like beauty would fit a bell curve distribution, but it is not what I instinctually do.