About

The PSL Scale is a scale that emerged from early incel and lookism centric forums as an "objective" framework for quantifying physical attractiveness using standardized, predominantly geometric criteria. The scale became increasingly popular online in the 2020s as looksmaxxing content grew more mainstream thanks to figures like Clavicular.

Origin

The PSL Scale was conceived and developed on now-defunct manosphere forums. According to researchers^[1] Anda Iulia Solea and Lisa Sugiura: "These forums were notorious within the development of the misogynist incel movement, representing a space for individuals to congregate to discuss looks theory, looksmaxxing, and the blackpill."

Etymology

The PSL Scale derives its name from a combination of three prominent forums: PUAhate, Sluthate, Lookism. In contemporary usage, PSL is often defined as Proportion, Size and Lineation.

Usage

Proponents of the PSL Scale claim that it evaluates facial aesthetics based on proportionality, symmetry, structural harmony and sexually dimorphic traits. Within this model, fewer structural irregularities correspond to higher aesthetic ratings. According to the Aesthetica Index Wiki^[2]: "Proportion refers to the measurement of symmetry, golden ratio and overall harmony, meanwhile Size refers to the prominence and mass of the human bones, while Lineation refers to the sharpness of facial contours."

The PSL Scale

Per the Aesthetica Index Wiki^[2], The PSL Scale is as follows:

Category: Subhuman

Below 0.5: Low Subhuman

0.5 – 0.7: Subhuman

0.8 – 1.3: High Subhuman

Category: Sub 5

1.4- 1.8 LTN-/LTB- (Lower Low Tier Normie/Becky)

1.9 – 2.3: LTN/LTB (Low Tier Normie/Becky

2.4- 2.7: LTN+/LTB+ (Higher Low Tier Normie/Becky)

2.8 – 3.2: MTN-/MTB- (Lower Mid Tier Normie/Becky)

3.3 – 4.5 MTN/MTB (Mid Tier Normie/Becky)

4.6 – 5 MTN+/MTB+ (Higher Mid Tier Normie/Becky)

Category: HTN/HTB

5.1 – 5.3 HTN-/HTB- (Lower High Tier Normie/Becky)

5.4 – 5.6 HTN/HTB (High Tier Normie/Becky)

5.7 – 5.9 HTN+/HTB+ (Higher High Tier Normie/Becky)

Category: CL/SL

6 – 6.3: Low CL/SL (Low Chadlite/Stacylite)

6.4 – 6.5: CL/SL (Chadlite/Stacylite)

6.6 – 6.8: High CL/High CL (High Chadlite/Stacylite)

Category: Chad/Stacy

6.9 – 7: Low Chad/Low Stacy

7.1 – 7.2: Chad/Stacy

7.3 – 7.4: High Chad/High Stacy

Category: Adam/Eve

7.5 – 7.7 Adamlite/Evelite

7.8 – 7.9: True Adam/True Eve

Definitions

Subhuman – Extremely undesirable, deemed considerably unattractive by society at large.

Sub5 – Generally unattractive to society at large.

Normie/Becky – Ranging from below average attractiveness to slightly above average attractiveness. The majority of people fall within this range.

Chadlite/Stacylite – Attractive by societal standards.

Chad/Stacy – Upper echelons of attractiveness in society. Highly attractive facial features and a high physical score.

Adamlite/Evelite – Near-perfect level of physical attractiveness.

True Adam/True Eve – Pinnacle of attractiveness with idealized features such as symmetrical and genetically superior bone structure. Largely unattainable.

Distribution

According to the looksmaxxing community, the vast majority of people fall within a PSL score of 1.5 and 5.5, with 92.7% of humans categorized as Normies and Beckys.^[3] Though the exact distribution is impossible to quantify, the premise that the most attractive occupy a significantly smaller proportion of society is an unchanging feature of PSL categorization. Example seen below:

Criticism

Researchers^[1] Anda Iulia Solea and Lisa Sugiura define the PSL Scale as "a systematic pseudoscientific framework that codifies the incel hierarchical worldview by ranking individuals through a racialised and gendered hierarchy."

Many argue that it is impossible to quantify beauty and attractiveness, which are often regarded as subjective, through mathematical or geometrical means. Additionally, the subjective nature of attraction makes truly objective categorization difficult, if not impossible. Those critical of the PSL Scale's value often point to celebrities with physical traits that are typically regarded as unattractive, as these perceived flaws do not diminish their success or perceived attractiveness.

Various Examples

Search Interest

External References