i propose to post pictures and ratings to encourage dialogue about establishing an appearance scale and illustrating diversity in tastes. now Martha Stewart was a model. therefore she was, as defined by the market "model material" a 9.

the game is to either post your evaluation of this pic of Martha on the TER scale OR post a non provider pic that you think is a 9. (no provider ads on the GD.)

I rate those pics an 8. I have personally spent time with much better looking girls than that in the pics.

Pictures are black and white and outdated styles, While some might be old enough to feel a connection most would not I beleave.  If current style photo in color was posted it would be a much more fair and objective rating.  Based on what I see there it coul range from 8 to 10 depending on eye color, hair color and make up,

also defined by the market as a 9. if you're working as a model and making a living, how can you not be "model material"?

I like Martha's curves, but I wonder if affects the opinion of the men raised on this board, many of whom were raised in the post-Twiggy era.

you undermine the "validity" of the appearance score, right?

her hip to waist ratio is pretty high.  Most of today's "mainstream" models have much lower ratios.   Which is actually kind of ironic given the ever increasing size of the average American.  But that's not the point either.  lol

I think that "objective" or "popular" definitions of beauty have changed, ever so subtlety, since Martha was in her prime.  And I think that subtle difference can affect whether is someone is rated a 7 vs 8 vs 9.

Very interesting subject, Claudius.

a recent thread / debate over objectivity versus subjectivity in appearance scores was pretty futile for several reasons. one is that reviewers like to think that their personal standard is truly objective and everybody else should score as they do.

another reason was that it was framed in a way that discouraged female participation. girls are the real experts in female appearance. so i thought that reframing the discussion in this way could be more interesting.

I usually deduct at least one point from the TER score to get a feel of what she really looks like if I meet her in public.  Of course, this only applies to someone whose face is blurred; I can judge right away if her face is not blurred. Let's get real; there cannot be this many real-world 10's and 9's on TER. On top of that, they only charge 300? LOL

re-reviewed as a 9 or even a 10 because while looks tell one side of the story, personality and attitude contribute considerably to the equation as well.  What I didn't see in the first visit became much more clear in the second or third visit causing to rethink my original appearance score.

Of course that knife cuts both ways.  When I re-scored a lady that developed a very ugly personality after the first visit from 9 to 8, she threw a fit, which almost earned her a 7

age has nothing to do with it.

In fact, I find a woman who has maintained herself well while ascending into MILF & beyond VERY attractive.

No, really.....I'm not just sucking up...  

She is still within "attractive range" in terms of bodily measurements, proportions considered to be attractive, and facial characteristics, hence a seven. My guess is there won't be many people rating her a 2 or 3s or 4s, 5s, if at all,  since she is within the range.

not my type to get a 9 though but I'm sure people from her time period thought she is above 7.

Her Attentiveness, especially a smiling girl (for men)
And a men who gives off image of success, money, charisma (for women.)
Not that you didn't know this already, imo, many factors play in (but only to a certain extent) and sometimes two can't be isolated when the score gap (what you refer to as variance) becomes narrower.

So whats happening here? Same girl you walked into the session and your first
inpression was shes a 7 and somehow at the end of the session shes an 8 or a 9.
This has happened to me a few times too. It seems to have a direct relation to
the intensity and passion of the session, but still the same lady so why the change.
   My guess is that 'chemestry' thing has kicked in and somehow her incredible
performance has changed your whole perception of how she looks. Im also thinking
this can certainly have the opposite effect.
 So the big question when I review her is do I give her my first opinion or the last?

Example: I recently read a review of a lady I've seen recently where the reviewer didn't give her a higher rating because she was "thicker" than he had imagined.

Mind you, the lady is 5' 4", and while not a 100 lb. waif, was extremely fit, and her pictures showed it. Nowhere close to "thick".

I didn't get it...but maybe that's because I'm a pretty big guy myself, and thought the lady was hot.

Anyway...if the pics are accurate, make your own judgement on rating, I say.

i get criticized a bit for being an "easy" appearance grader, fact is i've been spoiled.

my standard for "once in a lifetime" (civy) is an exSO who was quite the hottie. if Martha and Giselle are 9s then she was a 10. so when i meet a lady in the biz who i think is as beautiful as my ex or more than Giselle and Martha.... well... 10 it is.

Charlie Gibson...... who woulda thought?

Frankly I'd still date Martha even though she's been busted by LE.

a 10 is much easier...in women like Dorothy Dandridge, or AishwaryaRai Bachchan i can find no flaws, no small thing which could be changed that would improve their appearance. the Martha Stewart pictures posted i find to be unappealing, and would perhaps rate a 6 at best. thin lips, dull skin tone, average hair, and what appears to be a semi-wide but flat backside. not to mention, she looks very, very unfriendly, lol. yes, this is all extremely subjective, much more so than many seem to realize.



-- Modified on 1/25/2012 8:44:55 PM

Talina A, below is a 9. All the models I posted because they are hot and not a gag are 9's. I have yet to post a 10. Photo is from Met-Art.com.