In adultwork there are many profiles without face pictures. Reading AW reviews does not help as they are mostly written by super fluffies almost always giving 10/10 for their beauty level. I felt compelled to make a picture-calibrated face beauty scale to illustrate the various level of female face beauty. Perhaps some members here will find this scale useful when writing a field report and want to give a relatively accurate impression about the escort’s level of attractiveness. The scale is judging the face beauty level but at the end I give my view about assessing the body and overall attractiveness as well.Scale of FACE attractiveness:
A picture-calibrated FACE beauty scale is given in the link below. Of course it is subjective, very subjective. The choices and ratings may be debatable but nonetheless I believe that most people will agree with me in the majority of the them. Also things like makeup, smile, pose, and photoshop play significant role in the impression of attractiveness that a certain photo gives about a girl. http://imgur.com/y2jDGzL
(nb using the BBCode results to a huge image when compared to the forum's text size)
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 very subjective and I found myself swapping pictures all the time until getting convinced that this is the “correct” way in the “tie-break”. Use of the scale:
(a) 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.
(b) 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.
(c) 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.
(d)The levels below 5.0 are the various levels of ugly.NOTES:
(a) 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.
(b) I initially made this list only for ratings from 7 and above and using pictures of only escorts that I met with but I struggled to find representative, non-photoshopped, face pictures in the right dimensions and pose. So I decided to also use pictures from escorts that I didn’t see as well as pictures from other sources such as USA police mughshots. This gave me the opportunity to expand the calibration to the lower extreme (5-7 range).
(c) The girls from adultwork that I have seen are listed with their AW name while those who I didn't meet with are just tagged as AW. Some girls from those I 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. For example I am sure that I will be deprecated about rating Kylie Flirt so low. Anyway.
(d)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 the following youtube video and you will understand http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4fUjzqCC-8
) . The photoshop pictures that I chose for this beauty scale belong to the first category only.
(e) With all these good looking girls arrested and some being in the jail (in USA) you may start thinking that a US female jail is the dream place for a man to be!Calculating BODY attractiveness:
This actually depends on what you are looking for, but in any case I generally tend to be more generous about the body score rather than the face score. For body attractiveness I would propose the following weighting: body slimness 60%, tits size 20%, height 20%.
Body slimness: This is the easiest: If a girl is slim and fit then she takes 10/10.
Tits size: I would say 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: I would say 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%=9.1/10Overall attractiveness:
As for the overall attractiveness I am personally weighing 40% face score and 60% body score. 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!