A picture-calibrated scale of female face beauty and overall attractiveness
This scale has been created by forum member Jason. Anyone is free to use it when writing their own reviews if they wish. The scale is judging the face beauty level but an assessment of the body and overall attractiveness is given as well.
- 1 Introduction
- 2 Scale of FACE attractiveness
- 3 Calculating BODY attractiveness
- 4 Overall attractiveness
- 5 Related links
On Adultwork there are many profiles without face pictures. Reading AW reviews does not help as they are mostly written by super fluffies almost always awarding 10/10 for their beauty level or referring to them as gorgeous or stunning. A picture-calibrated face beauty scale illustrating the various level of female face beauty was created in order to give a relatively accurate impression about an escort’s level of attractiveness when reviewing.
Scale of FACE attractiveness
A picture-calibrated FACE beauty scale is given in the link below.
- Version 1 (first published on UKP on 07/10/2013)
- Version 2 (first published on PuntingWiki on 05/02/2015)
Use of the scale
- The use of the scale is based on comparison. You first select the category in which the reviewed girl falls and then you compare her with the girls in the category. If a girl is the most beautiful in the category then is awarded the highest mark in the category, etc.
- If unsure about the category (bouncing between two) then give either the lowest of the higher category or the highest of the lower category depending on what you are mostly inclined to.
- If the girl has good facial characteristics bar one (e.g. nose) you may give her a score based on the rest and account for the bad feature by a penalty of up to -1.5. Similarly to account for ageing you subtract from the initial score -1.0 for 35 y.o. looks, -2.0 for 42 y.o. looks and -3.5 for >50 y.o looks.
- For version 1 the levels below 5.0 are the various levels of ugly.
- Version 2 is stricter and makes a wider use of the number range with the various levels of ugly being those below 4.0. A comparison between the two versions is given in the relevant section.
- This scale is subjective, VERY subjective. That said albeit the choices and ratings may be debatable there is nonetheless the belief that most people will agree in the majority of the them.
- Things like makeup, smile, pose, and photoshop play significant role in the impression of attractiveness that a certain photo gives about a girl.
- The pictures are taken from several sources including adultwork, google and yahoo pictures, police mugshots etc. Mixing up police mugshots with photoshopped pictures might seem at first a not very wise or fair thing to do but it illustrates that girls who are naturally beautiful will still look good even under the worst circumstances.
- Regarding photoshopped pictures there are two distinct categories. (i) Minimally retouched, i.e. just to hide minor temporary blemishes such as spots or so – like “electronic makeup” and (ii) completely transformed via the application of the golden ratio (watch this youtube video and you will understand). The photoshop pictures that were chosen for this beauty scale belong to the first category only.
Notes about Version 1
- The level of attractiveness within a certain category is meant to increase incrementally vertically from top to bottom (nb top=lowest, bottom=highest). The incremental increase is 0.2 for categories “below mediocre”, “mediocre” and “gorgeous” and 0.1 for categories “OK”, “cute”, “pretty”, “beautiful” and “rare beauty”. Especially the vertical calibration is extremely subjective and the creator of this scale found himself swapping pictures all the time until getting convinced that this is the “correct” way in the “tie-break”.
- This list was initially made only for ratings from 7 and above and using pictures of only escorts that the author met with but as he struggled to find representative, non-photoshopped, face pictures in the right dimensions and pose it was decided to also use pictures from escorts that he didn’t see as well as pictures from other sources such as USA police mughshots. The use of mugshots and other external images gave the opportunity to expand the calibration to the lower 5-7/10 range as well.
- The girls from Adultwork that the author has seen are listed with their AW name while those who he didn't meet (at the time the scale was first published) are just tagged as AW. Some girls from those he saw may look (in the flesh) better or worse than in their pictures so comparisons based on pictures alone may be a bit unfair as well.
The scale received a lot of criticism and ridicule but still quite a few members found it helpful. Apart of course from the subjectivity in the rankings the first version of the scale was deprecated about other aspects as well:
- One thing often criticised about Version 1 is that the scoring system is generous for the girls below 7.5/10 and that some girls should had scored less than 5 or some of those listed as 7s are in facts 6s etc. The response to this criticism was that it is a grading system and not a rating one and that most importantly the main purpose of this scale is not the numerical score itself but the meaning of this number. Assigning a score without defining a scale and a frame of reference is more or less meaningless. If you say that something costs 1000 you have to also specify the currency (GBP, Euros, dollars, etc). Similarly if you say that the temperature is 35 degrees you have to specify the temperature scale (Celsius or Fahrenheit). Only then the number or score becomes meaningful. Another thing worth mentioning is that the first version was created primarily from police mugshots and being more generous was an attempt to be “fair” as we know that they would look better in a normal picture with makeup, under normal circumstances, etc. Remember we are not talking about photoshop but about the the wonders of make up as well as the pose. In fact if there were two scales one of girls without makeup and one with full makeup the top ranked girl in the first scale would be several positions down in the latter one. Merging the two scales i.e. merging projected scores with actual scores to give the entire spectrum is hard and doing it “fairly” even harder. The second version is a better attempt as it was created from a larger pool of pictures in the right poses.
- Another thing often ridiculed is the use of a continuous decimal system instead of a discrete integer one considering the use of 0.1 increments as an “overkill”. The response to this was that the use of decimal values is a way to illustrate a progressive change in attractiveness helping out to comparing girls of almost equal but not completely equal attractiveness. An integer scale would mean either awarding the same score or awarding scores with 1 unit difference. Either way the integer system is inflexible and often inaccurate often conveying the wrong message as it cannot capture small differences.
Notes about Version 2 (Modifications from the previous release)
- After the criticism of version 1 the scoring of the lower ranked categories was restructured in order to match better the general perception of these scores' meaning. As such 2 further categories called ‘fairly attractive’ and ‘mildly attractive’ were created in order to serve the range 7.0-7.4 and 6.5-6.9 respectively. The OK range was pushed down to 6.0-6.4 (from its previous 7.0-7.4). Another new category called "plain/neutral" was created in order to serve the 5.5-5.9 range. The mediocre range was pushed down to 5.0-5.4 (from its previous 6.0-6.4) and the below mediocre was pushed down to the 4.0-4.9 range (from its previous 5.0-5.9). As a consequence of the restructure the scale stepped up in terms of the girls’ required attractiveness for scores in the range 5.5-7.4.
- The first version was pretty “accurate” from 7.5-10 which was the author's primary interest. Despite the change of pictures in the 7.5+ categories there is backward review compatibility between the two versions i.e. the scores awarded in the author's reviews are valid in both versions.
Calculating BODY attractiveness
This actually depends on what you are looking for, but in any case there is the tendency to be more generous with the body score rather than the face score. For body attractiveness the following weighting is proposed: body slimness & figure 60%, tits size & shape 20%, height 20%.
Body slimness: This is the easiest: If a girl is slim and fit then she takes 10/10.
Tits size: 1/10 for cup A, 5/10 for cup B, 7/10 cup C, 9/10 for cup D, 9.5 for cup DD and 10 for cup GG. If shaggy then subtract 2/10 as penalty.
Height: 1/10 for 1.60m-1.65m, 5/10 for 1.66m-1.69m, 8/10 for 1.70-1.72m, 9/10 for 1.73m-1.76m, 10/10 for 1.77m - 1.80m. If shorter than 1.60m then subtract 2/10 (i.e. give -2/10). If taller than 1.85m then award 7/10.
For example a slim girl, 1.71m tall with cup DD shaggy tits will score: Body score= 10/10*60%+8/10*20%+(9.5-2)/10*20%=9.1/10
As for the overall attractiveness a weighing 40% face score and 60% body score is proposed. The reason for slightly favouring the body score is because the reason of booking an escort is not to take her face pictures but to f*** her! … and you can do so even without looking at her face!
- Discussion thread of the beauty scale on UKP
- Jason's UKP reviews
- Ranking by face score of girls reviewed by Jason (using beauty scale version 2.0)