I find that when it comes to looks, the majority of reviewers greatly inflate their ratings.  Ive seen some providers who  consitent get 8's and 9's on looks that are average looking at best; providers I would never consider using (although if I met them in a dark bar I might go along for the ride).  It seems  like  many reviewers are so enamored with providers they engage in syncophantic ass kissing bordering on idol worship(almost as if the reviewers were closet submissive paying homage to their dominas (which is pathetic).  Reviews are only useful if they are fair but critical.  A "9" means model looks -- at least as good looking or maybe a little better than a very nice Playboy Centerfold.  A "7" or "8" is in the range of celebrities like the Jeniffers (Aniston and Lopez), Alisa Milano,  or some failry well known Penthouse models (Shauna -- aka Kimbelrly Taylor).  Most of the "genuine" girls advertising are between 4 and 6 with some 3s and some 7's.  The 8s should be reserved for the Shauna's and Nicole's (of FLorida) of the world.

You are obviously a man with very high standards and exquisite taste.

Just as you disagree with many reviewer's scales, I'm sure many disagree with yours.  "7" is "attractive," and I don't think a woman needs to have movie star looks to be considered attractive.  Besides, you're rating ASPs, not movie stars, so I see nothing wrong with guys adjusting the scale upwards a bit.

Appearance ratings are extremely subjective.  Haven't you had the experience of finding a person become more physically attractive to you as you get to really like them?

Also, because there is no "Overall Experience" rating, I think guys tend to incorporate their overall impression into the appearance and performance ratings.  

Just a girl's opinion.

....and as one example of that I personally wouldn't agree at all with your high opinion of Jennifer Aniston's or Alisa Milano's looks.  Maybe that's one thing that makes the world go 'round.  If we all had the same tastes the line would be so long we'd never reach the beginning of it.

but ugly goes all the way to the bone.

GND,  you been missing me? lol

I knew a woman that was featured in their celebrity lay-out back in the mid-1990's.  We were good friends and dated for about 5 years.  

Based on that experience, I can assure you the pictures in the magazine bear little resemblance whatsoever to what the real woman looked like.  When her pictorial came out I didn't even recognize her.  And it wasn't just airbrushing of little imperfections.  They made her entire figure more voluptuous than it was (including legs and butt) with all sorts of other little tweaks too.  What I'm trying to say is even the women in Playboy don't really look like the women in Playboy, or at least not without the help of about ten or more professionals.

There are a few true natural beauties.  Everyone else works hard to be a 7 or 8.  But that is the real world, not Playboy.  So does a studio shoot with a dozen technicians working on Pamela Anderson represent what the rating scale should be based on, or is it what the most attractive "real" woman looks like?  One without her own make-up trailer.

While I agree that there is "grade inflation" in many of these ratings (for the reasons you state and others) I don't think using Playboy models or TV stars wearing theatrical make-up is the right measure either.  Those "10's" only exist in two dimensions.   They're just nice looking 8's or 9's in the real world, which of course, actually makes them the true "10's."

sexynycman - minor correction - the word is sycophantic, not syncophantic.  Sedagive.

You have many good points...i agree with alot of your thoughts...you have high expectations and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that! xoxo Lisa

Here's my observation of the reviews:  Most reviewers rate the woman's (oh, excuse me, Adult Service Provider's) appearance based on the visual fulfillment of the fantasy they've been creating in their head (the one ABOVE the shoulders) in combination with the picture in the ad and the voice they heard when they made the appointment.
Performance is a larger variable dealing with perceived fantasy fulfillment, clit size, blow job technique, and yielding control to the male via swallowing, dining at the Y, Anal, spanking, hair pulling, etc.

Face it, if a man wants to sleep with a woman, the fastest way is to stimulate her mind.  If a woman wants to sleep with a man, all she needs to do is show him her new store-bought tits.

My basic point remains valid.  While I agree there is a certain subjective component to judging looks, there are generalized, prevailing standards of beauty -- or more accurately sexual desirability -- in our modern day society.  Although others may argue to the contrary, I rate providers the same way I do all women -- based on an immediate visual, visceral reaction.   No matter how wonderful a providers service may be, her looks remain constant.  So no, I cant say my guage of looks has been altered by a womans persoanlity, or her service.  Her overall appeal to me may increase, but not her looks.  And for me, a 9 based on prevailing standards, is close to the bombshell sex kitten mold -- Pam Anderson, Carmen Electra or the very top feature dancers or porn stars (Chrissy Mountjoy, Gina Lamarca, ect)  And while some of these exceptional girls may be availiable as providers, I find their monetery expectations rather absurd.  If you have tons of Ben Franklins to burn, theres no need to use providers as many of the same girls are "on the program" by which I mean receptive to Sugar Daddy's. There are "program" girls all over South Beach -- just go to the Delano and flash a fat banroll and youll make lots of exquiste friends in the 8 or 9 range.

That's what happend to a couple USN girls got picked for a layout in Playboy. They interviewed then, side by side with the pics, yow! Couldn't even see the resemblance.

You're talking about rating, to a point, the object of their desires which may cloud the judgement. But the girls are photographed professionally with makeup, hair and wardrobe done. Good lighting and then washed(Hey G2), so of course you'll probably not see what the picture promised, but it should be pretty close, not a DMV mugshot.

              Chrissie

Psychologist have tested perceptions about what constitutes physical beauty in a woman's face (the've also done it for men, but who cares).  The result is almost universal agreement all around the world as to what is beautiful, especially in A/B comparisons of photographs.   We seem to be hard-wired to be attracted to the same basic things.  So yes, there do appear to be universal standards of what is good-looking.  You can test yourself on one of the internet "rate my face" sites.  I was surprised how consistently close I came to the previous ratings.

I think the issue is in a media-driven world, what constitutes reality ie. what's a "10"?  Imaginary images of women that don't really exist (but seem real because they can be seen in any movie or on TV), or the most attractive real women one could see out in a major city.  The woman I dated in Playboy was about a 6 in her natural state and a 7-7.5 when she worked her magic.  Yet, she was easily a 9 in Playboy.  So how do you rate her?

I can't rate a lady on just facial appearance.  It's a whole package from head to toe.  For example if you put Cindy Crawford's head on Roxanne's body, that would not be a 10.  The overall appearance score is very subjective.  IMHO, models in Victoria Secrets and Sports Illustrated are 10 from head to toe.  If we use that standard, then none of the providers I've seen in the past is a 10 in appearance.  I've given providers as high as 8, never a 9.  Don't get me wrong, some of these providers are hot, but you just can't compare them to the VS and SI models.  However, some of these providers can be a head turner in a bar, a club, or a restaurant.  Again, this is an appearance discussion only, don't mix this with performance.

I think some reviewers grade looks on a curve. In other words, the grade may be based upon the women they have seen ( or experienced) in real life, and in that particular occupation; as contrasted with the women we see in movies and magazines.

Here are some good "rate my face" sites...

Am I the bomb?
http://www.amithebomb.com/

Rating women:
http://www.ratingpeople.com/index.html?l=1300%5E5&t=2

Face the jury
http://www.facethejury.com/rate_people.asp?sex=female&ftj_auth=3BB5F88

Rate my face:
http://www.ratemyface.com

Let's face it, we review these ladies AFTER we have been
intimate with them, in some manner or form. (That takes into
account F/S vs Non-F/S ASP's.
I wonder if we would give the same appearance ratings if we
were ranking their appearance prior to the appointment as
we do afterwards.  Just curious...
My most favorite provider is not the most attractive lady I
have seen, but we click and she "rocks my world" like no other.  Conversely the most attractive provider I have seen doesn't affect me the same way, although she is a wonderful woman in every respect.
Just my two cents here.
As always YMMV!
LM

That's why they have two separate categories for ratings: appearance and performance.

But I get your point, sometimes they look a lot better after a mind blowing session!

Sometimes I can't see straight after a session.  On thought is to wait some recovery time before writing the review.

This is actually a recognized phenomenon in psychology (transference).

I used to see this all the time in market research data when I worked for a major car company.  The model with the V-8 engine would receive higher satsifaction ratings than the V-6 powered car in unrelated areas like audio performance, build quality, interior comfort, etc.  The thrill of the extra horsepower favorably skewed perceptions about the entire car.

If a V-8 can affect your judgment, imagine what a great BJ can do.  Or put another way, the most beautiful girl in the world is the one currently giving me head (and I really mean that)!  It's not surprising that carries over into the reviews- hey, we're only human.

Lustman, good to have you back.

G2:
You mean like you were getting head while you were typing?
Yer a better multitasker than I am!
LOL
LM
Gone but not forgotten

Obviously, I forgot about your ability to find a joke where none exists, or I would have proofed that more carefully!

Yeah, that'll be the day I ruin a good BJ by typing a post, hell, I have trouble remembering to breathe!  There are some things that should just be savored and that's one of them.  Although, I have "multi-tasked" before by driving down the 405 fwy. while receving a BJ.  But to tell you the truth, I wasn't really paying much attention to the road, so I'm not sure that qualifies either.  LOL.


-- Modified on 9/7/2001 6:19:43 PM

-- Modified on 9/8/2001 12:12:33 AM

Well my friend, as long as the "botts blocks" are between lanes and you can steer by braille, I would not worry...
I am never very far from my computers but the month I was supposedly on vacation was one of the busiest months I had
all year work-wise (goddamshitfuckhell!) So I am praying when I take of December I will truly be closed!
LM

I agree completely with sexynycman.  In order to "scale" the ratings, I check the appearance ratings given to other providers of the reviewer.  If a majority are 8/9, then I usu. assume this reviewer inflates his appearance ratings by 1-2, because there just aren't that many providers, percentage wise, who have model looks or better.  I look at a "10" as damn near perfect and among the most beautiful women you've ever seen (including pictures, not just among providers or in person).  Only the top 10% should be rated 9/10.  I think some ratings wouldn't be inflated if guys used these guidelines.