There have been two separate threads here recently; one about providers preferring clients to be older than 25-ish, then another by a younger hobbyist about reviews of providers posted by us old farts in which we allegedly (and in truth, most probably) aren't posting objective info about older providers looks because we are adjusting our ratings based on what we'd expect for their age instead versus howe they compare to this month's Playmate of the Month.

I have to admit it but I discriminate along the same lines as the providers; I am leery of young providers. Yeah sure an 18-year old may have a wonderful, beautiful, youthful body, have boundless energy and may be technically proficient, but if I'm more than double her age would there be any chenistry? That's important for my whole experience. I have to admit I'm reluctant to see any provider under 25 and prefer older. Anyone else have similar feelings? I have to admit this is based purely on  prejudice rather than any bad experience with younger providers. I have lingering doubts whether my prejudice is rationale, because 1) girls seem to mature mentally faster than boys, and 2) damn, those 18-year olds look good!!!!!!

Regarding the second thread about age-adjusted LOOKS ratings, I plead guilty. Maybe TER could revise its rating system along the lines of a golf handicap where there is a gross (oops, entirely wrong term when discussing looks) and net score. Gross would be versus the "Playmate of the Month" standard -- breast sag, wrinkles, cellulite, etc are points off -- and the net score would be compared to what I'll call the "Rene Russo/Michelle Pfeiffer" standard, in which means they're a 10 for a 40-something. I have to admit I have no idea how to construct such a system. Any ideas?

Its really not that hard to get a baseline from which to compare a particular reviewer's scores.

Look look at the other ladies he has reviewed. You may have seen some of them already. If he scored them much higher than you would have, discount his reviews by an appropriate amount.

If you havent seen any of the ladies he has seen, someone probably has. Compare his reviews to theirs, and maybe you have seen some of the third persons 'reviews' to get a baseline against.

If he hasnt seen anyone else but a previously unreviewed provider, I discount his review totally until there is some corresponding evidence from someone else who is reputable.

I was nearly burned by an underage provider with her sister's fake ID.

As long as I have K..., T..., K..., S.... and V.... to choose from in Chi-town, I have no reason to turn to 'barely legal'. It just ain't worth it to me to 'sail so close to the rocks'.

It's my engineering training, I guess, but there ought to be a way to weight all these factors to get an overall ranking. From experience programming, it even would be possible to let each individual enter their own personal weightings for the various factors that TER collects data on. For me, I prefer teeny tiny titties, but boob size is probably 0.1% in ranking what I look for. For others, it may be 90%. To each his own. Vive la difference!

-- Modified on 7/12/2002 8:39:07 PM

..the number scores pertaining to looks mean nothing to me.  If you ask me about someone's looks I'll answer, "she's pretty", "she's sexy", "she's plain", "she's ugly", "she's drop dead gorgeous" etc.  Ask me if someone is a "7" and I have no idea what that means (although I do have a better idea of what a "10" is--go figure).  The physical descriptions in the reviews are what I most often go by.  I do have a bit of an issue with the term "athletic" when describing body type though--a gymnast is athletic, but so is a skinny marathon runner--that one always gets me.



-- Modified on 7/12/2002 9:55:15 PM

Yeah, at best they are a rough approximation of the individuals preferences. From looking at how he scored several ladies though, you can get a rought idea of what a 7 might mean to him.

What the difference between a 7 and an 8?
A 5 and a 6? Damned if I know, and I have assigned them.

Ahh yes, but the young ones are oh so tempting.

How else are they going to learn what we like, if we don't show them?

I am one of the persons that posted on TER boards about rating inflation on look ratings.  I am new to the boards and if I remember correctly, I have not accused anyone to give inflated ratings because they are older hobbyists.  My point is that usually great or better performance by a provider boosted her look rating by 2 or 3 points, which IMHO is a bit too much.

I am in my late 30s and considered myself open minded.  I have encountered women aged mid 30s to 40s that are sexy and beautiful.  What I am objected to is inflated ratings in looks in a given age group.

There are women in their 30s and 40s that are absolutely gorgeous, well worth 9s and 10s.  Compared to an 18 or 22 years old girl, they are possible not as attractive to a younger hobbyist.  However within the age group that they belonged to, they will be the models and beauty queens, and should be cherished.

When I saw a rating of 9s and 10s on a lady listed as 31 to 35, I expected to find someone that looks like a more mature model, a TV anchor or a warm and good looking TV actress (TV actress are usually only good looking not ultra glamorous like movie stars) not someone that looks like 10 years older, has plasters of makeup, tired eyes and smile.

I have a few encounters of expensive 8 or 10-rated providers that are simply plain and old.  Sometimes in my paranoia, I felt that previous reviewers wanted others to fall for the same trap.  Of course that is not the real cause of the rating inflation.  However, because of my experience, I have a strong view on this subject, so please pandon me if you feel offended.

I will like to share the basis on which I use to rate a provider's look.  This is probably a bit too critical and pretentious.  It is just my humble opinion in a discussion.  I am open to other's opinion, criticism and enlightenment.  An open and honest exchange of idea is what we all are looking for in these forums.

The standard I used to rate women in looks is based on women I saw on the media (magazines, TV, movies, etc) that are widely viewed, thus it will have a common basis for all to use as a criteria.  Women are compared to other women within similar ethnic background.  The TER rating descriptions are used in setting the standard.

I place a 10 rating on beautiful ladies that I will highly unlikely to meet or befriend with in my own circles.  (I think that will meet the definition of Once in a Lifetime)  They don't have to look like a super model but at least have to look like a beauty pageant.  (Once in a Lifetime)

(e.g. Cheryl Tiegs for 46 - 50, Michelle Pfeffer 36 - 45, Phoebe Cates, Brooke Shield 36 - 40, Brooke Burke 26 - 35, Rebecca Lords (Porn) 31 - 35, Heather Lockyear 31 - 40, Silvia Saint 21 - 25)

(What this means is that if a provider aged 31 - 35 or older looks like Rebecca Lords, she is 10; otherwise she is probably a 9 in 25 - 30 age group or an 8 if the provider is 18 - 25.  This is because of one's expectation of look in certain age group.  If a provider aged 21 - 25 looked like Cheryl Tiegs looks now, she is probably a 7; if she is 25 - 35, an 8; 35 - 40, a 9)
(Some of the women look younger than they are, hence they can stretch 2 different age groups)
(Phoebe Cates is a 10 in her age group NOW because of her ethnic background; otherwise I will rate her as a 9.  When she is in her 20s, she is definitely a 10+)
(Some of providers are truly stunning and the Europeans can look better than movie stars)

A 9 rating are for someone that could be in printed ads, TV commercials or product promotions.  Sometimes they might not be pretty faced but they have to have an arresting or stunning look with an attractive or slender body.  The standard should be that one can imagine them being used as models. (Model Material)

(e.g. Christie Brinkley 41 - 50, Heather Graham 31 - 35, Christina Angel (Porn) 31 - 35, Working Supermodels, Carrie-Anne Moss 26 - 35, Jill Goodacre Connick 30 - 40, Brooke Burns 21 - 25)
(Carrie-Anne Moss is not as pretty NOW but has an arresting look; she is definitely a 9 in her 20s)

An 8 rating are for someone that are cheerleaders or girls next door that one has a crush on.  They should either turn heads or increase one's pulse when looked upon.  They should be at the minimum good looking and with a sensual or sexy body.  (Really Hot)

(e.g. Jennifer Love Hewitt 21-25, Gauge (porn) 21 - 25, Ice (porn) 21 - 25, Jamie Lee Curtis 35 - 45, Jeanne Fine (porn) 35 - 45, Tara Reid 21 - 30, Pamela Anderson 31 - 35, Sarah Jessica Parker 31 - 35, Rosanna Arquette 31 - 45)
(Pamela Anderson is 35, when she is 25 - 27, she is a 9 but she is an 8 NOW)

A 7 rating are for someone that are attractive but not very pretty or hot.  They should be someone that create interest but not necessary turn heads.  They either have a good looking face or a tone body but mostly likely not both.  Sometime they may be average looking but possess personalities that make them charming and attractive. (Attractive)

(e.g. Mary-Louise Parker 26 - 35, Jennifer Jason Leigh 26 - 35, Patricia Arquette 31 - 40)
(They are rated lower NOW because either their body is not very tone or they looked older than their age)

6 (Nice) or lower rating in looks are easy to understand and I don't think they are of particular interest in this discussion.

Again I apology if all these seem to be so pretentious.


-- Modified on 7/13/2002 4:30:50 AM

Your point is still true because of the subjectivity of any rating of looks, but the verbal labels are very helpful.

1 = I was really scared; 2 = Ugly; 3 = Homely; 4 = Ok if you are drunk; 5 = Plain; 6 = Nice; 7 = Attractive; 8 = Really Hot; 9 = Model material; 10 = One in a lifetime

LC

To me athletic means:

1.  It looks like she goes to the gym or works out in some way
2.  There is evidence of musculature definition as opposed to flab

Regards

Boy, there's a lot of information to digest in this thread.

John Galt hit the nail on the head. Read the reviews and compare your idea of beauty to the reviewer's using providers that you both have seen. If you haven’t seen that many providers, find a provider’s ad with several pictures and see if the reviews follow your ideal.

I prefer petite brunettes. That means that I will score a “Pam Andersen look-alike blonde” lower than 9 out of 10 guys. Stop bitching that you went to see a “9” and she turned out to be a “7”. That’s just the way it is in a YMMV hobby. I’ve seen tons of threads on how to score a provider’s looks and they are all an exercise in futility. I’ve found a TER member that has EXACTLY the same taste in women as me. We share info and neither one of us has been disappointed by a recommendation.

I know that I am guilty of rating a provider’s looks with a bias thrown in for how the session went. Unfortunately, that is human nature unless you look at a provider with the eye of a photographer. TER reviews provide the opportunity to make an informed (but not perfect!) choice. Use them wisely.

...what exactly is the difference between someone who is "really hot" and "model material"?  

BTW, is it just me or does the "Once in a Lifetime" rating seem a bit ridiculous?  Judging from some reviews I've read there are several TER members who've been reincarnated several times already in the last year or so.

-- Modified on 7/13/2002 4:55:01 PM

It may be next to impossible, especially because some women go on vacation, take a break from working out, get sick, etc. Two guys who have the exact same standards could see the same woman within 3 months and have very different experiences.

And as far as searching the reviews, I'd rather just have a binary 'in shape' or 'not in shape' entry. I'd search on 'in shape', then look at the picture and decide.

...to me what you described is someone who is "fit".  If it describes her as "athletic" I wanna know if she can shoot a free throw, hit a tennis ball, set a volleyball, or at the very least, do the splits.

Great point, 2k1! I've never given a "10" for looks or performance. I'm always sure that my next encounter will be better and then what do I do? I'm still disappointed that a score of "10" is awarded in any "sport".

Nadia Comaneci ruined it for everyone.

Your original post complained about the numbers and you said that you describe a lady in terms of verbal descriptors ("she's pretty," "she's sexy," "she's plain," "she's ugly," "she's drop dead gorgeous" etc.).  Now you say such labels don't help you.

Oh Well.

LC

...the labels as they relate to the numbers don't help me.  As I said, I will desribe a woman as "pretty", etc--but don't then ask me to assign a number score to "pretty".

The numbers can be thought of as proxies for the verbal labels.  The numbers themselves are abstract and are subject to variable interpretation, as you argued.  The verbal labels that the numbers represent are still subject to variance in interpretation, but they are more grounded than the numbers in something that hobbyists can relate to and understand.  When using the TER attractiveness ratings it is not necessary to think in terms of numbers per se--the verbal labels can be the basis of the ratings.

LC