Popular media on UKEscorting.com (free site!)

UKPunting is a free, independent and not-for-profit paid sex buyer site.


Author Topic: A picture-calibrated scale of female face beauty (and overall attractiveness)  (Read 9038 times)

Offline Jason

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%=9.1/10

Overall 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!


Offline Jason

Take cover!!

Well that is why I posted it externally. I can remove the scale anytime I want and redefine it. It is easy to be judgmental to others’ work but when you sit down yourself to do such a face calibration it is actually very very difficult. Also perhaps someone will say that going to the 0.1 or 0.2 scale is ridiculous but on the other hand it is very coarse to rate in an integer scale 1-10. So I preferred to grade (than rate) in closest 1 decimal place.

Offline smiths

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%=9.1/10

Overall 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!

As you said attractiveness is subjective to the individuals opinion. Thats all thats relevant to me. Nowadays for me ideally its looks, personality/attitude and services offered at the right price. Looks are the initial lure but not enough on their own and i can fancy a WG that isnt that attractive if she has a great friendly bubbly personality, she must meet certain size criteria though.

Offline skittish


http://imgur.com/y2jDGzL   (nb using the BBCode results to a huge image when compared to the forum's text size)



How long did that little project take hope you done it in work's time.

incidentally regarding the BBCode and image size you can reduce image size for forum purposes like this,

 








Offline skittish

Well that is why I posted it externally. I can remove the scale anytime I want and redefine it.

Whoops  :blush:

Offline rpg

Well that is why I posted it externally. I can remove the scale anytime I want and redefine it. It is easy to be judgmental to others’ work but when you sit down yourself to do such a face calibration it is actually very very difficult. Also perhaps someone will say that going to the 0.1 or 0.2 scale is ridiculous but on the other hand it is very coarse to rate in an integer scale 1-10. So I preferred to grade (than rate) in closest 1 decimal place.

Not judging your work. To be honest it was too complicated for me to follow. I was merely anticipating comments to come, but I might be wrong.

Offline Jason

How long did that little project take hope you done it in work's time.

It is not a single day’s dedicated work. I was doing it during my free time every now and then by adding bits or making changes. As I said I originally made it only with escorts’ pictures but later I started substituting some pictures by police mugshots. The whole idea of face attractiveness calibration started when I wanted to have my own reference of what I personally mean when I say that a girl has a certain beauty score. And this can find application both in the punting and civvy world.

Well I would move Jennifer Jensen into the next column.
And your first column has to high a starting score.

Offline LL

I hope you're not including head-measurements and planning a master race!

Seriously though, I think you're taking all the fun out of sexual attraction and pretending that it's scientific when I don't think that it is.  Sometimes it doesn't even matter if you've seen the girl's picture before a punt.  This cannot prepare you for, and you cannot predict how your brain will respond, after you've nervously stepped inside that flat (door opened by an unseen hand as if by a ghost).  Your first impression when you make eye contact with your booking is what it's all about - forget about body statistics, ratios and comparisons.  If she makes the right first impression, a nice outfit, a bit of effort made on her hair, a smile - all for me.  The effect on me lasts easily long enough to get me through the half-hour session.

Online NightKid

Take cover!!

Your username + that comment, intended?  :lol:

incidentally regarding the BBCode and image size you can reduce image size for forum purposes like this,

 

Thanks! Did not know that.  :blush:

Seriously though, I think you're taking all the fun out of sexual attraction and pretending that it's scientific when I don't think that it is.

/thread.

But I appreciate the effort OP has put into the whole thing.

Offline skittish


Thanks! Did not know that.  :blush:



The 500 relates to the number of pixels in width so you can play about with it to suit yourself.
I think it's a better option than going to trouble of resizing the image and hosting elsewhere, plus the viewer can click on the image and see it at it's original size.

Online NightKid

The 500 relates to the number of pixels in width so you can play about with it to suit yourself.
I think it's a better option than going to trouble of resizing the image and hosting elsewhere, plus the viewer can click on the image and see it at it's original size.

I tend to have to use postimage.org for their thumbnails for forum link to make it smaller in a post without resizing the image.
Trouble is, I can't be bothered to create an account to keep track of pics I've uploaded there but have done so with other sites like imgur ... so this should help remedy it nicely.

While we're on the subject of postimage images, your excellent one from this post seems to have been removed - https://www.ukpunting.com/index.php?topic=16693.msg259965#msg259965

Offline akauya

Jason, whilst I admire your efforts to produce a quasi scientific approach to determine female beauty I really think you need to get out more and maybe find a prossie and shag her brains out. Seriously mate, you have too much time on your hands. How long did that take you? I'd rather spend the time researching for my next punt.

Beauty, as it has often been said it's in the eye of the beer holder.

Offline skittish



While we're on the subject of postimage images, your excellent one from this post seems to have been removed - https://www.ukpunting.com/index.php?topic=16693.msg259965#msg259965

Postimage.org is down for maintenance so that might explain it, if not I can sort it later.

Offline Jason

I hope you're not including head-measurements and planning a master race!

Seriously though, I think you're taking all the fun out of sexual attraction and pretending that it's scientific when I don't think that it is.  Sometimes it doesn't even matter if you've seen the girl's picture before a punt.  This cannot prepare you for, and you cannot predict how your brain will respond, after you've nervously stepped inside that flat (door opened by an unseen hand as if by a ghost).  Your first impression when you make eye contact with your booking is what it's all about - forget about body statistics, ratios and comparisons.  If she makes the right first impression, a nice outfit, a bit of effort made on her hair, a smile - all for me.  The effect on me lasts easily long enough to get me through the half-hour session.

As far as the girl’s face belongs in the “cute category” (as defined in the above scale) or higher she can generate enough sexual attractiveness given she has a nice body. Sexual attraction is generated more by the body and the actions rather than the face and as I said I am far more easily pleased regarding body attractiveness. No problem about punting with girls in the “cute category”. But for me face beauty determines the price that I am willing to pay for. For a girl with looks comparable to Megan Fox I am prepared to “break the bank”! On a more realistic scenario I am happy to pay up to £250/h if the girl belongs in the “gorgeous category”, up to £150/h if she belongs in the “beautiful” category, up to £120/h if she belongs in the “pretty” one and up to £100/h if in the “cute”.


Jason, whilst I admire your efforts to produce a quasi-scientific approach to determine female beauty I really think you need to get out more and maybe find a prossie and shag her brains out. Seriously mate, you have too much time on your hands. How long did that take you? I'd rather spend the time researching for my next punt.

I am punting very regularly mate and not just in the UK. As I said previously this “beauty scale” is not a single day’s work. I started it some time ago and I worked on it very little every so often during free time.  I originally thought it would be much faster and easier though.

Offline Jason

Well I would move Jennifer Jensen into the next column.

As for Jennifer Jensen I couldn’t find more pictures of her to judge her further. I agree with you that she is incredibly beautiful but the last column is reserved for the most beautiful women ever.

And your first column has to high a starting score.
In order to get the lower ratings "absolutely" "correct" one must also work the full way down to the lowest extremes. I didn't bother to spend time researching the ugly levels. But perhaps 4.5 would be a better starting score for the first column given the first picture, I agree. But anyway the purpose of the first column is to (significantly) reduce the starting error in the second one. So the starting score of the second column is more or less “correct”. After all, in punting the minimum level of attractiveness that we are seeking is that of the “cute” (fourth) column and above. So the calibration "serves its purpose".

Offline Tailpipe

Jason, whilst I admire your efforts to produce a quasi scientific approach to determine female beauty I really think you need to get out more and maybe find a prossie and shag her brains out. Seriously mate, you have too much time on your hands. How long did that take you? I'd rather spend the time researching for my next punt.

Beauty, as it has often been said it's in the eye of the beer holder.

 :D :D :D

Offline Joe Blob

There's already a unit for measuring facial beauty, the Millihelen.

One millihelen is sufficient beauty to launch one ship.

There's already a unit for measuring facial beauty, the Millihelen.

One millihelen is sufficient beauty to launch one ship.

Very good  :D

Kelly Smith's (dont know who she is?) mugshot is one of the most attractive pics in that gallery for me yet she only ranks as an 'OK'

The 3rd girl (AW) down in the 5-5.9 column also has a sexy face in my opinion

In general though most of the girls in the gallery arent really my type and its too racially biased

Really just shows how subjective 'beauty', 'sexiness' and 'attractiveness' can be and attempting to attach numbers and scales to it is a little pointless
« Last Edit: October 08, 2013, 11:18:38 AM by BillGoldberg »

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

I hope you're not including head-measurements and planning a master race!

Seriously though, I think you're taking all the fun out of sexual attraction and pretending that it's scientific when I don't think that it is.  Sometimes it doesn't even matter if you've seen the girl's picture before a punt.  This cannot prepare you for, and you cannot predict how your brain will respond, after you've nervously stepped inside that flat (door opened by an unseen hand as if by a ghost).  Your first impression when you make eye contact with your booking is what it's all about - forget about body statistics, ratios and comparisons.  If she makes the right first impression, a nice outfit, a bit of effort made on her hair, a smile - all for me.  The effect on me lasts easily long enough to get me through the half-hour session.

Definitely agree; there's been two girls I've been with who I initially avoided since I didn't like the look of them. Both I ended up with after they were brought in with another girl for an FFM, and I must admit I was slightly in awe of them in person. Couldn't even say why as they weren't my usual type or flawless 10/10's, but there was something about them that I found absolutely stunning at the time.

Overall 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!
I think Lyndsey King is better looking than several others higher up your scale.

Offline Melfort212

How can you bring height into this? The thought of shagging a tall bird puts me off so wouldn't have a 10/10 at all, the smaller the better, and for other's it'll be the same and for others it'll be different. The initial post is your opinion, nothing wrong with that, but you can't take that across to everybody to use this system.


Latest videos on UKEscorting.com (free site!)

Latest images on UKEscorting.com (free site!)