>>22691298People are actually lowly rating this fuck because he's the best looking ITT. Are you ratings really so useless that you rate anyone average looking as a six because it's nicer than being on the bottom half, but vote incredibly attractive people to be on par with the fuckables out of jealousy? Hell, most of the 1-3s are because they have piercing or some other stupid shit, and most of the tens is because they strike your sexual fancy due to your preference of homely people or people with certain exaggerated features, which is not the same thing as acknowledging a human's apparent nigh-universal attractiveness (which at it's traditional Hollywood peak is more-or-less cut and paste so it gets old real fast, tbf).
I will also say that this guy knows how good he looks and is therefore an attentionwhore, but I guess that is the point of /soc/, to an extent.
>tl;dr 10/10, anyone who says anything below 9/10 is being an envious ass. 
