Author Topic: Prossies - they're ugly  (Read 8229 times)

Offline AnthG

Also totally agree the best looking ones are Never the best in bed .....They are only worth one visit
But the 7/10 WG that bangs like the duracell bunny with a smile on her face will get repeat custom . :kissgirl:

In my opinion I would say the best looking ones are not the best in bed, but it doesn't matter it still makes them the best punts for me.

I would much rather see and take any day of the week a gorgeous girl and the services be lacking and very limited, than an ok looking girl with a load of services.

Offline Jimmyredcab

In my opinion I would say the best looking ones are not the best in bed, but it doesn't matter it still makes them the best punts for me.

I would much rather see and take any day of the week a gorgeous girl and the services be lacking and very limited, than an ok looking girl with a load of services.

I agree totally, who wants to shag an ugly bitch, not me.   :hi:

Quesadilla

  • Guest
Well this one looks liek a 40 year old housewife back from shopping, she doesn't show her face but I can't see her being a 7+ unless your standards are very low

https://www.adultwork.com/dlgViewGImage.asp?Image=4603950.jpg&SN=12&Description=xox
Hilarious that you took the time to trawl (troll) through my reviews just to try and stir some shit but as always what you posted is just semi-literate incoherent nonsense - I really can't be arsed to point out your ignorance yet again. No point trying to educate the uneducable.

In future when I want your opinion I'll give it to you.  :hi:

Q

James999

  • Guest
Hilarious that you took the time to trawl (troll) through my reviews just to try and stir some shit

You said you punted 7+ rated  girls so I wanted to see what they looked like, took about 20 seconds to pick up that link you fucking bell end, no wonder you got wanker of the week  :sarcastic:


broksonic

  • Guest
Well this one looks liek a 40 year old housewife back from shopping, she doesn't show her face but I can't see her being a 7+ unless your standards are very low

https://www.adultwork.com/dlgViewGImage.asp?Image=4603950.jpg&SN=12&Description=xox

For all you know she could be very attractive. 

I see 9s and 10s all the time when I'm out, absolute stunners.

Prossies, I agree, these very very hot women I rarely find working. I met one who was a genuine 10/10 once, and saw her as often as possible until she quit, but aside from that I'd say 7 or 8 is as good as it generally gets, with the average maybe 6/10.

Prossies just seem to have a certain "look" that you don't see on the pretty, stunning 9s and 10s in the street or at a bar. Even the very hot ones have a harshness to their faces in my experience. The odd one might escort, but generally I think the uber hot girls dont normally consider escorting because their self worth is so very high.

James999

  • Guest
For all you know she could be very attractive.

She's obviously not, his reaction confirms it  :hi:

Quesadilla

  • Guest
Don't you just love the Ignore feature? Perfect for turning off the ignorant.   :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

James999

  • Guest
Don't you just love the Ignore feature?

Shame you don't use it then, instead of keep telling people you do, the irony is if you used it you wouldn;t have seen the posts to respond to, but hey you've been shown up as a twat (Again) so I guess you're gonna be pissed  :sarcastic:


Offline Boundless

I'd say a 4  :hi:

IMO she is better looking in the flesh than the photos.

Offline Steely Dan

If a girl is really attractive she doesn't need to be a prostitute. She will be able to get along quite nicely in ordinary life. A genuine smile is the most attractive quality and let's face it how many of us have a genuine warm smile for a client, especially if it's client number 10.
Huh? A really attractive girl (with few life skills) can easily earn £100 per hour how exactly? Do you think it could be the case that some don't really "need" to be prossies, but that they like earning a great rate for doing not much?

James999

  • Guest
IMO she is better looking in the flesh than the photos.

That wouldn't be difficult  :sarcastic:

But usually pro$$ies (and females in general) tend to use pictures that show them in their best light, so if the pics make her look a minger she usually is  :hi:

Quesadilla

  • Guest
If a girl is really attractive she doesn't need to be a prostitute. She will be able to get along quite nicely in ordinary life. A genuine smile is the most attractive quality and let's face it how many of us have a genuine warm smile for a client, especially if it's client number 10.
Sorry what "ordinary life" are you talking about exactly?

The ordinary life where women are paid typically 15-20% less than men for doing exactly the same job with exactly the same qualifications with a glass ceiling permanently holding back their career prospects?

Or are you referring to the "nice ordinary life" where she finds a rich guy, gets married, pops out some kids and does coffee mornings? 

As said elsewhere, an attractive woman can earn a lot more money as a WG than her educated sisters.  Just 1 £150 booking per day 6 days a week gets you to nearly £50k before tax. For an EE charging £100 they only need ~2 bookings per day.  Some don't declare their income, so that's equivalent to more than an £80k pre-tax income. 

I imagine it can't be too difficult to cultivate a "genuine smile" for that kind of income in a job that at least on the surface seems to mostly involve buying new clothes and shoes and then lying on your back.

Which "nice ordinary" life would you choose?  Prostitute yourself in the workplace for a pittance and fight a losing battle against discrimination in the workplace; prostitute yourself to a husband who's likely to be out shagging WG's himself; or prostitute yourself on your own terms and earn a truck load of cash yourself?   :unknown:


Offline Jimmyredcab

Huh? A really attractive girl (with few life skills) can easily earn £100 per hour how exactly?

She probably can't --------------------------- but a really beautiful girl can go to the top nightclubs in London and meet a wealthy guy, she has no need to rent out her pussy at £100 an hour.     :hi:

Offline Jimmyredcab



Which "nice ordinary" life would you choose?  Prostitute yourself in the workplace for a pittance and fight a losing battle against discrimination in the workplace; prostitute yourself to a husband who's likely to be out shagging WG's himself; or prostitute yourself on your own terms and earn a truck load of cash yourself?   :unknown:

One small factor you have not considered.   

Not every girl would want to be fucked by every Tom, Dick and Abdul week in week out.    :thumbsdown:

west8

  • Guest
This got me thinking. Could you honestly claim the vast majority of prossies you've been with are good looking? I certainly can't.

Yes.

Do your research properly and join the club.

Offline Marmalade

In future when I want your opinion I'll give it to you.  :hi:
You won't have to. He'll give it to you first whether you want it or not. You can put him on ignore but you'll still see what he says if someone else quotes it  :yahoo: :lol: ;)

Offline Marmalade

This got me thinking. Could you honestly claim the vast majority of prossies you've been with are good looking? I certainly can't.
some people claim it: doesn't make it true

Jason

  • Guest
Many punters here, on AW and elsewhere are describing cute/pretty-ish girls as ‘stunning’ or ‘gorgeous’ giving them ‘9.5s’ and ‘10s’ while being ‘7.5s’ or ‘8s’ at best although numerical scores mean absolutely nothing without assigning a meaning to these numbers with some sort of scale or at least *consistency* throughout various reviews on different girls. There are various types of punters who give 10s too easily and misuse the term ‘gorgeous’ or ‘stunning’. These are:
(i) the fluffies – no comment …
(ii) the inconsistent, attention-seeking, 8m long snakes who post reviews during post-punting euphoria only to do a spectacular U turn afterwards. Their opinion or judgement is worth exactly 0p.
(iii) the tasteless-they are those who will value eating McDonalds the same as or even better than eating a steak in a world renown restaurant. I guess they are those who also voted Jennifer Aniston as the hottest woman of all time (see here) … WTF??? !!!!
(iv) those who refer to the body attractiveness only-For them a slim body and/or a good pair of tits and/or a nice arse makes the girl gorgeous. It should not…
(v) the cheapskates- they also belong to categories (iii) and/or (iv) but with the additional characteristic of having variable taste. They shag mingers given the price is low and praise them for their looks and then they become ultra-critical for pretty girls who are over their budget claiming utter bullocks that they can find *many* similarly good looking girls priced lower.
(vi) the biased cheerleading fanboys-these are very misleading as they give biased top marks to their merely pretty favourite regulars while being normally unbiased and with correct judgement for girls they see for first time.

Yes, beauty is in the eye of the beholder (or beerholder) but it is (i)one thing having a disagreement of whether Megan Fox is more beautiful than Adrianna Lima or the opposite and (ii) a totally different thing equating plain Jane with them. But I never post to shit on others’ reviews to express my own different taste. After all what makes my own taste the ‘right’ one? It’s their money, their selections, their punts and I am glad they have good time. I simply never trust them when I read their reviews of girls with no face pics or photoshopped body pics. For the record I only trust the opinion of 4-5 UKP members … not that I have ever been someone who awaits from others to TOFFT in first place but that’s a different story.  :hi:
« Last Edit: December 01, 2014, 07:07:35 am by Jason »

Quesadilla

  • Guest
You won't have to. He'll give it to you first whether you want it or not. You can put him on ignore but you'll still see what he says if someone else quotes it  :yahoo: :lol: ;)
So far not so much. Most of the cronies who bother to quote him are also on my ignore list (hint - great way to get on my ignore list is quote James and agree with anything he has to say).
Occasionally a respected member of this site does make the mistake of quoting him usually in a misguided attempt to rebutt one of his more ridiculous ramblings - not realising they are completely wasting their time trying to educate the ineducable.

Apart from those increasingly rare occasions James doesn't exist. And on those rare occasions it just confirms that he never has anything to say worth listening to and definitely nothing worth responding to other than to put him firmly back in his place.   :lol: :lol: :lol:

James999

  • Guest
great way to get on my ignore list

Quality the way he thinks his imaginary "ignore list" is important, no one would know about it if he didn't keep going on about it, does show a very low IQ though that after being here such a short time he's upset so many, but then to draw with west8 for WOTW is some achievement  :sarcastic:

Many punters here, on AW and elsewhere are describing cute/pretty-ish girls as ‘stunning’ or ‘gorgeous

I definitely agree with that sentiment.
Hot Ameera, is a perfect example. described frequently as stunning but her pics show a girl who definitely cute but a bit too goofy looking to be a stunner.

Offline Boundless

So far not so much. Most of the cronies who bother to quote him are also on my ignore list (hint - great way to get on my ignore list is quote James and agree with anything he has to say).
Occasionally a respected member of this site does make the mistake of quoting him usually in a misguided attempt to rebutt one of his more ridiculous ramblings - not realising they are completely wasting their time trying to educate the ineducable.

Apart from those increasingly rare occasions James doesn't exist. And on those rare occasions it just confirms that he never has anything to say worth listening to and definitely nothing worth responding to other than to put him firmly back in his place.   :lol: :lol: :lol:

I don't agree that James isn't worth listening to.
He provides me with endless hours of entertainment and I'll never tire of that emoticon.
 :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi:

Offline Stiltskin

An interesting topic. I would just add a factor that hasn't been discussed. Most WG's upon a meeting look natural, either with little or no make-up whereas most civvies would be dolled up. A bit of face paint makes a big difference.

Make-up is a major factor IMO, as even a Playboy girl can go from a 10 to a 4 when her make-up is removed. Kendra for instance, not sure if she was ever a 10, but definitely a 4 in the jungle at best.

Most girls I've seen didn't wear much make-up if any at all. Some would have a bit of eye make-up, but that's it. Whereas most of the girls you see on the street after your mediocre punt will be wearing make-up, so not a fair comparison really.

Quesadilla

  • Guest
I don't agree that James isn't worth listening to.
He provides me with endless hours of entertainment and I'll never tire of that emoticon.
 :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi:
Fair point - I created a program that meticulously calculated his entertainment factor vs the mind-numbing predictability and banality of his comments and - computer said no.  :lol:

Offline Marmalade

Fair point - I created a program that meticulously calculated his entertainment factor vs the mind-numbing predictability and banality of his comments and - computer said no.  :lol:

He's been here a long time. You maybe haven't quite got used to the furniture yet.

I like the layout of your reviews. The essentials (only bit I generally read) at the beginning which makes for good reference, then the other stuff afterwards for those that like that. As I only regularly punt in Scotland and abroad, I can't really comment on accuracy.

Beauty is indeed in the eye of the beholder -- at least to an extent -- but the "beholder:" who reads the review is not the same person that wrote it, so I try to bear that in mind (as I don't write reviews for my benefit or the prossie's). Some people like old and fat, for instance, no problem as long as they realise that is not everyone's taste.

I used to do photography (which is maybe also a hobby for you?). Having looked at professional models critically it is easier to apply the same eye to anyone, and most people are pretty shit-looking to a degree. A lot is about how well they transform themselves. Some models are shit looking off camera, but they learn how to fool the lens. One or two are indeed actually stunning.

In terms of a prossie's looks, and reviews, I think the best guide is getting to know the reviewer's standards and tastes. There are competent reviewers in any field that just don't ring my bells as they have such different ideas about what is 10/10. I think at least if you can compare what they say about different prossies, from shit-awful to best-available, then you get a guide, and it's why I try to do a 'comparison' review occasionally, hopefully to give other punters a more useful idea.

One of my bugbears with escorts is the one who does a great photo, not necessarily photoshopped, but looking at least pretty hot. Then when I arrive they have no make-up on and look honestly as if they have made little or no effort in terms of appearance.

The other bugbear is ones who are average to ok looking, but then post an offputting load of shit in a 50p PG. A fanny photo is one thing, but if it just happens to include rolls of belly fat, stretch marks, a caesarian scar and skid marks then all the nice main profile stuff was not only a waste but misleading (thank for being honest *eventually!!*).

My bugbear with reviews, apart from complete fluffy ones, is ones that look as if they were copied from AW with minor amendments. I can't trust AW reviews, so why should I trust the same review on UKP? Nice that someone bothers. But it would be even nicer if they put the punter (ie wrote on UKP) first.

Offline johnny34

Fair point - I created a program that meticulously calculated his entertainment factor vs the mind-numbing predictability and banality of his comments and - computer said no.  :lol:

You seem to spend an awful lot of time making coments about James considering you have him on ignore. :lol:

Quesadilla

  • Guest
<snip>
I like the layout of your reviews. The essentials (only bit I generally read) at the beginning which makes for good reference, then the other stuff afterwards for those that like that. As I only regularly punt in Scotland and abroad, I can't really comment on accuracy.
Cheers - I recognise that I have a habit of fluffiness which is not to everyone's taste hence the layout hopefully gives the best of both worlds.  I've had a few members comment directly to me after they've seen girls I've reviewed and so far no-one's complained I misled them. 
Beauty is indeed in the eye of the beholder -- at least to an extent -- but the "beholder:" who reads the review is not the same person that wrote it, so I try to bear that in mind (as I don't write reviews for my benefit or the prossie's). Some people like old and fat, for instance, no problem as long as they realise that is not everyone's taste.
I do try to be accurate but rarely objective - not sure such a thing actually exists. Apart from KDD I don't see girls without face pics so that is generally my main point of reference - whether I felt her pics were an accurate representation or if in reality she was better / worse. 

I used to do photography (which is maybe also a hobby for you?). Having looked at professional models critically it is easier to apply the same eye to anyone, and most people are pretty shit-looking to a degree. A lot is about how well they transform themselves. Some models are shit looking off camera, but they learn how to fool the lens. One or two are indeed actually stunning.
Personally most of the WG's I've visited I've found better in the flesh, but I find it particularly difficult to be objective with my cock in their mouth.  :D  That's why I think it's more useful to say whether she was as per her pics than just a straight / subjective marks out of 10 style score.

In terms of a prossie's looks, and reviews, I think the best guide is getting to know the reviewer's standards and tastes. There are competent reviewers in any field that just don't ring my bells as they have such different ideas about what is 10/10. I think at least if you can compare what they say about different prossies, from shit-awful to best-available, then you get a guide, and it's why I try to do a 'comparison' review occasionally, hopefully to give other punters a more useful idea.
Agreed - some reviewers here I almost totally ignore, probably about 10-15 I know have very much the same taste as me and I'm always very interested in what they post.

One of my bugbears with escorts is the one who does a great photo, not necessarily photoshopped, but looking at least pretty hot. Then when I arrive they have no make-up on and look honestly as if they have made little or no effort in terms of appearance.
That's only happened to me a couple of times to be fair - a couple of ladies don't seem to wear much make-up but have been naturally pretty enough to get away with it. Only had one not really make an effort in terms of dressing up but she was Hungarian and clearly didn't understand my request.  Fucking awesome blowjob though so again, forgiveable.  :D
 
The other bugbear is ones who are average to ok looking, but then post an offputting load of shit in a 50p PG. A fanny photo is one thing, but if it just happens to include rolls of belly fat, stretch marks, a caesarian scar and skid marks then all the nice main profile stuff was not only a waste but misleading (thank for being honest *eventually!!*).
Hmmm...definitely not seen much of that and sometimes the PG pics I've seen make me wonder why they've chosen the profile pics they have. Still I would rather get to the PG and realise she's not for me than turn up on her doorstep.
My bugbear with reviews, apart from complete fluffy ones, is ones that look as if they were copied from AW with minor amendments. I can't trust AW reviews, so why should I trust the same review on UKP? Nice that someone bothers. But it would be even nicer if they put the punter (ie wrote on UKP) first.
Again for me it comes back to trusting the reviewer. I don't bother to read AW field reports at all now, only ever look here and if there are no positive reviews I have to take a long hard look at whether to put the girl in my TOFTT pile. Even if there's a review here if it's from someone I don't recognise I usually look at their other reviews / posts to decide whether to rely on it or not. So far that approach has stood me in very good stead for some fantastic punts.  As always, a big thanks to all the reviewers on this site is all I can say!  :drinks:

Offline Ali Katt

As has been said looks are subjective. Nothing personal, but I looked at Quesadilla reviews and they weren't women I would go for, simply because I don't like the Barbie girl. The women I've gone with who have been a 7/10 or above very few. Ones who have been a 5\10 or below very few, most are average. I automatically knock a point off if they have a tattoo and that includes a "subtle" one. To be a 10\10 she would have to look like Rhianna (before she wore shit clothes and got chav tatts) or Scarlett Johanson before she got chav tatts and disappeared up her own arse, and no prossie looks like that. The best I can do is shag council estate fuckers and hope I don't regret it too much.

fredpunter

  • Guest
I definitely agree with that sentiment.
Hot Ameera, is a perfect example. described frequently as stunning but her pics show a girl who definitely cute but a bit too goofy looking to be a stunner.

It is nothing short of silly to say that people are wrong because they think someone is attractive but you don't. Apart from the fact that most people who say ameera is attractive are those who have actually met her, I think most of the same people would agree that the photos are not particularly flattering.

But before I'm accused of white knighting for ameera, that is not why I'm here, the more folk who find her unattractive the better as far as I'm concerned, it increases my chances if being able to see her and decreases the chances of her getting more expensive. The fact is people have very different tastes. On the London discussion board currently there is talk of a party held on Saturday by 4 very popular girls, unquestionably it was value for money and all apparently had a good time, but there is not one of those girls whose photos appeal to me. That doesn't mean the people who like them are wrong, if just means they like different things.

Dodo

  • Guest
Always amazes me when walking in Amsterdam red light district (never punted there)  how you will walk past a window with what most would regard as georgeous looking chick sitting there and in the next window you will see a 20stone blob but both charging the same rate. Just goes to prove the point that everyone has a different idea of 'beauty'.

Offline Marmalade

I do try to be accurate but rarely objective - not sure such a thing actually exists.

There's truth on both positions (beauty in eye of beholder vs objective beauty). If beauty was only in the eye of the beholder, then the term would be meaningless. On the other hand, it is clear that a high degree of subjectivity is the norm. So we could say it is a meaningful as any other abstract term. Or an assessment of a figure or face that would "commonly be held" to be beautiful. (Classical definition is a certain balance of proportion, as opposed to a shapeless blob.) We are here just talking about physical beauty of course.

Sometimes people just confuse the word, for lack of vocabulary. "Beautiful" isn't the same as "very cute" or "bubbly" or "captivating" or "charming" or "sweet" and neither is it a simple absence of negs ("she didn't have acne, bad teeth, or a booger hanging out of her nose, so I'd say she was beautiful." Which would be crap of course.) Take the first lot of words in that sentence and it is easy to substitute "beautiful" in the blood-rush of the moment especially as we are culturally primed to use that word for any woman who is pleasing and who we want to please.

They don't want to be called cute or bubbly or captivating or charming" or sweet if they can get a "beautiful" out of us. The unfair fact (for both sexes, but women more than men) is that beautiful looking people tend to get on better in all walks of life. That generally means not working as a prostitute.

One only has to visit an expensive restaurant or coffee bar and look at the physical beauty of the women there --- and then go down to the hood or the slums and look at the physical beauty of the "no-hopers." Beautiful people, on average, get better jobs, better looking spouses, better career paths and even better grades. It stinks, but it's true. Unfortunately what we instinctively recognise as beauty or the lack thereof, and what we want to admit, can be very different!

Fortunately most people are somewhere in the middle. And it's a broad enough swathe to include many whores. But the people who consistently give 10/10 to women in AW are seeing women on a different planet. Or else they lying to themselves and everybody else. (There used to be a picture thread on UKP of beautiful women: there were very few whores on it.)

It's not to say they are all ugly. Just not 10/10 for beautiful.

Quesadilla

  • Guest
There's truth on both positions (beauty in eye of beholder vs objective beauty). If beauty was only in the eye of the beholder, then the term would be meaningless. On the other hand, it is clear that a high degree of subjectivity is the norm. So we could say it is a meaningful as any other abstract term. Or an assessment of a figure or face that would "commonly be held" to be beautiful. (Classical definition is a certain balance of proportion, as opposed to a shapeless blob.) We are here just talking about physical beauty of course.
Just being slightly pedantic but there is absolutely no possible objective definition of beauty - you might get a "consensus" within a particular social group at a particular place and time but to another social group or in a different region or at a different point in time the consensus will be different. 
"Classical beauty" is very much a western / european notion and does not translate to other cultures at all.  Audrey Hepburn might be classically beautiful to us but to a chinese person most likely looks just like any other caucasian chick.  On the other hand, we as westerners might be particularly attracted to chinese women who happen to have more European / "classical" features but that doesn't make that beautiful - it really is just in the eye of the beholder.

Sometimes people just confuse the word, for lack of vocabulary. "Beautiful" isn't the same as "very cute" or "bubbly" or "captivating" or "charming" or "sweet" and neither is it a simple absence of negs ("she didn't have acne, bad teeth, or a booger hanging out of her nose, so I'd say she was beautiful." Which would be crap of course.) Take the first lot of words in that sentence and it is easy to substitute "beautiful" in the blood-rush of the moment especially as we are culturally primed to use that word for any woman who is pleasing and who we want to please.
The concept of "beauty" ultimately originates from sexual attractiveness and according to evolutionary biology koinophilia is the ultimate basis for the notion of beauty.  This simply means that, when seeking a mate, we look for "normal" features, ie no particularly unusual / deviant / ugly features.  We want a mate with features that are "tried and tested" not unusual - so in fact the notion of beauty ultimately means we look for features that are "most common" or "average" in a particular species or group not really spectacular. Spectacular would be out of the norm and therefore considered deviant.

They don't want to be called cute or bubbly or captivating or charming" or sweet if they can get a "beautiful" out of us. The unfair fact (for both sexes, but women more than men) is that beautiful looking people tend to get on better in all walks of life. That generally means not working as a prostitute.

One only has to visit an expensive restaurant or coffee bar and look at the physical beauty of the women there --- and then go down to the hood or the slums and look at the physical beauty of the "no-hopers." Beautiful people, on average, get better jobs, better looking spouses, better career paths and even better grades. It stinks, but it's true. Unfortunately what we instinctively recognise as beauty or the lack thereof, and what we want to admit, can be very different!
Not sure all of this follows.  I'm a consultant to Fortune 1000 organisations and have worked with high-flyers in all industries - can't say many of the women I've met have been beautiful.  Some above average, but mostly average at best.  Beauty is certainly no guarantee of "getting on" in these walks of life at least in my experience.   More beautiful people lower down the food chain in the secretarial / administrative areas so actually I'd say you need more than beauty to get a decent career path. 

But then maybe the genuinely beautiful people all end up marrying millionaires rather than having to work for a living.  I suppose you could argue that is just another form of prostitution though if you wanted to be cynical about it. 

Fortunately most people are somewhere in the middle. And it's a broad enough swathe to include many whores. But the people who consistently give 10/10 to women in AW are seeing women on a different planet. Or else they lying to themselves and everybody else. (There used to be a picture thread on UKP of beautiful women: there were very few whores on it.)

It's not to say they are all ugly. Just not 10/10 for beautiful.
Again, according to evolutionary biology - "somewhere in the middle" is by definition "beautiful". 
Any other definition is just a product of a particular time / place / culture.

So when we rate someone 10/10 that is based on our own subjective experience of the world, coloured of course by cultural references but ultimately more likely to be "average" or "in the middle" with "normal" features not anything out of the ordinary at all.


The concept of "beauty" ultimately originates from sexual attractiveness and according to evolutionary biology koinophilia is the ultimate basis for the notion of beauty.  This simply means that, when seeking a mate, we look for "normal" features, ie no particularly unusual / deviant / ugly features.  We want a mate with features that are "tried and tested" not unusual - so in fact the notion of beauty ultimately means we look for features that are "most common" or "average" in a particular species or group not really spectacular. Spectacular would be out of the norm and therefore considered deviant.
...
So when we rate someone 10/10 that is based on our own subjective experience of the world, coloured of course by cultural references but ultimately more likely to be "average" or "in the middle" with "normal" features not anything out of the ordinary at all.

While there is certainly logic to what you've written here, I don't think that this is entirely how things work in practice. Take for instance the issue of unusual features. What about red hair, which is caused by a genetic mutation ? I am more than happy to have sex with women of any hair colour but if I were to be in a situation where there was a redhead, a brunette, a blonde and a black haired girl,  who in all other respects I found equally attractive, if I could only choose one, I would choose the redhead.Genetically speaking, one could argue this is the rarest feature of all, so what is it that make me and others attracted to this unusual feature ?

Secondly, the definition of beauty as being what is the most average. Do you really set out in your punts looking for average plain Jane types ? I can see what average women look like every day. Average women are neither ugly nor attractive. They are most women who I see everyday, that are not sexually attractive to me in any way but neither are they ugly. Women who am I am actually attracted to are in a much smaller minority than those I find average or ugly. If it were really a question of averageness, then I would be attracted to most women. Sadly I spend too much of my time chasing women who are probably out of my league, only occasionally managing to get lucky with the kind of women I would like to (hence punting when I have the funds) Unless of course by average you are referring more to a kind of median average and a theoretical halfway point between extremes of features ? But a median average is at odds with a mode average of the most common.

Of course I agree that all of us will have different tastes in women.One punters definition of average and beautiful could be very different from another's.

I do think you're onto something with cultural perceptions. Sexual attraction is a combination of natural hormonal/physiological reaction and a result of our personal response to the culture around us. I think we also end up associating women with particular looks with good sex based on personal experiences with similar looking women, which reinforces certain looks as being even more attractive.

Quesadilla

  • Guest
While there is certainly logic to what you've written here, I don't think that this is entirely how things work in practice. Take for instance the issue of unusual features. What about red hair, which is caused by a genetic mutation ?
Kind of making the point - the reason red hair is the rarest natural hair colour is that it is still at some level considered an aberration.  But an unusual hair colour is not as obvious a genetic handicap as e.g. unappealing facial features might be. 

Secondly, the definition of beauty as being what is the most average. Do you really set out in your punts looking for average plain Jane types ? I can see what average women look like every day. Average women are neither ugly nor attractive. They are most women who I see everyday, that are not sexually attractive to me in any way but neither are they ugly. Women who am I am actually attracted to are in a much smaller minority than those I find average or ugly. If it were really a question of averageness, then I would be attracted to most women.

Sadly I spend too much of my time chasing women who are probably out of my league, only occasionally managing to get lucky with the kind of women I would like to (hence punting when I have the funds) Unless of course by average you are referring more to a kind of median average and a theoretical halfway point between extremes of features ? But a median average is at odds with a mode average of the most common.


Koinophilia suggests that mating occurs automatically by people looking for mates with the least aberrations / deviance.  As a result such "perfected" features become more common or average. It does not equate to plain.  After all "plain" is also an euphemism for ugly is it not?  If you remove all the funny shaped lips, noses, eyes, chins, cheekbones etc - you get an average from a genetic perspective. There have been experiments done on this over the years taking pictures of many people and then producing a composite based on this kind of averaging and what you end up with is a specific type of "average" which when tested the vast majority of people confirmed was "beautiful". 


Of course I agree that all of us will have different tastes in women.One punters definition of average and beautiful could be very different from another's.

I do think you're onto something with cultural perceptions. Sexual attraction is a combination of natural hormonal/physiological reaction and a result of our personal response to the culture around us. I think we also end up associating women with particular looks with good sex based on personal experiences with similar looking women, which reinforces certain looks as being even more attractive.
Agreed - nature and nurture play a part. I have a definite thing for petite blondes because I fixated on my first girlfriend who was like that and have sought out girlfriends mostly like that since.  No surprise I married someone who was neither petite nor blonde (other than suicide blonde occasionally) and over time found the attraction waning.  So I've obviously re-programmed or specialised my natural instincts.  The underlying preference for "perfect" (ie non aberrant) features remains but I can still find a range of women highly attractive - at least for a 60 minute punt. :)

Offline Marmalade

There's plenty of published studies in psychology on this and it's fairly established. Also, ideas of beauty are strongly influenced by culture but this underlines that they qre indeed 'objective' within a particular culture. Most studies show we favour a minor deviation from the norm. As I said, neither of the two extreme views are definitive, but they are highly influential.

Kind of making the point - the reason red hair is the rarest natural hair colour is that it is still at some level considered an aberration.  But an unusual hair colour is not as obvious a genetic handicap as e.g. unappealing facial features might be. 

That isn't the reason red hair is the rarest colour. It is rare because someone needs a double recessive gene which causes a mutation of MC1R protein, so your point still does not really answer the question, if sexual attraction is really just about averages, why is anyone attracted to redheads ? Why is this genetic non average ok and not others ? I believe this is a demonstration that sexual attraction is not about mean or mode averages. Possibly it is about median averages.

I have a few other points of yours I'd like to address but your full quote is quite long and it is easier to split into two posts. I actually agree with a lot of it but there are some things which are prompting my natural debating instinct  :thumbsup:

Andre 3000

  • Guest
Many punters here, on AW and elsewhere are describing cute/pretty-ish girls as ‘stunning’ or ‘gorgeous’ giving them ‘9.5s’ and ‘10s’ while being ‘7.5s’ or ‘8s’ at best although numerical scores mean absolutely nothing without assigning a meaning to these numbers with some sort of scale or at least *consistency* throughout various reviews on different girls. There are various types of punters who give 10s too easily and misuse the term ‘gorgeous’ or ‘stunning’. These are:
(i) the fluffies – no comment …
(ii) the inconsistent, attention-seeking, 8m long snakes who post reviews during post-punting euphoria only to do a spectacular U turn afterwards. Their opinion or judgement is worth exactly 0p.
(iii) the tasteless-they are those who will value eating McDonalds the same as or even better than eating a steak in a world renown restaurant. I guess they are those who also voted Jennifer Aniston as the hottest woman of all time (see here) … WTF??? !!!!
(iv) those who refer to the body attractiveness only-For them a slim body and/or a good pair of tits and/or a nice arse makes the girl gorgeous. It should not…
(v) the cheapskates- they also belong to categories (iii) and/or (iv) but with the additional characteristic of having variable taste. They shag mingers given the price is low and praise them for their looks and then they become ultra-critical for pretty girls who are over their budget claiming utter bullocks that they can find *many* similarly good looking girls priced lower.
(vi) the biased cheerleading fanboys-these are very misleading as they give biased top marks to their merely pretty favourite regulars while being normally unbiased and with correct judgement for girls they see for first time.

Yes, beauty is in the eye of the beholder (or beerholder) but it is (i)one thing having a disagreement of whether Megan Fox is more beautiful than Adrianna Lima or the opposite and (ii) a totally different thing equating plain Jane with them. But I never post to shit on others’ reviews to express my own different taste. After all what makes my own taste the ‘right’ one? It’s their money, their selections, their punts and I am glad they have good time. I simply never trust them when I read their reviews of girls with no face pics or photoshopped body pics. For the record I only trust the opinion of 4-5 UKP members … not that I have ever been someone who awaits from others to TOFFT in first place but that’s a different story.  :hi:

Love this post

Adding random numbers to a woman attractiveness is pointless, as no one will agree for instance what separates a 6 and 7? or what makes a woman a 10?




Offline Ali Katt

That isn't the reason red hair is the rarest colour. It is rare because someone needs a double recessive gene which causes a mutation of MC1R protein, so your point still does not really answer the question, if sexual attraction is really just about averages, why is anyone attracted to redheads ? Why is this genetic non average ok and not others ?
If the girl has red hair she can get my protein once I get her out of her jeans.

Offline CatBBW

  • Service Provider
  • Posts: 2,042
That isn't the reason red hair is the rarest colour. It is rare because someone needs a double recessive gene which causes a mutation of MC1R protein, so your point still does not really answer the question, if sexual attraction is really just about averages, why is anyone attracted to redheads ? Why is this genetic non average ok and not others ? I believe this is a demonstration that sexual attraction is not about mean or mode averages. Possibly it is about median averages.


It's quite possibly an evolution thing, some (all?) humans are programmed to seek out genetic "abnormalities" to gain DNA advantage, to mix the gene pool, and to ensure the human race evolves successfully.

I once saw a lady whose skin was so black that it had a blue tinge to it. I couldn't take my eyes off her, her skin tone was so unusual that it was thing of beauty.

Offline wristjob

In the past I've had a few dogs. A few B&S before I got my head round walking, and occasional dabble into the "value" end of the market. Nowadays I stick to women I find extremely attractive and usually that;'s the case. Sure there are a lot of ugly prossies, I'll leave those for other guys. The thing is I choose who I pay my money to, so I don't have to punt with anybody who I don't think is of a certain standard.

The other thing is civvie girls vs WGs. There are women I meet in normal day to day situations I would absolutely love to have a go with, and if they were WGs they would never make the hotlist. Personality is a massive attraction and when they don't have that, when all you have to go on are their looks like WGs, actresses, models etc - then people get a hell of a lot more picky.

Koinophilia suggests that mating occurs automatically by people looking for mates with the least aberrations / deviance.  As a result such "perfected" features become more common or average. It does not equate to plain.  After all "plain" is also an euphemism for ugly is it not?  If you remove all the funny shaped lips, noses, eyes, chins, cheekbones etc - you get an average from a genetic perspective. There have been experiments done on this over the years taking pictures of many people and then producing a composite based on this kind of averaging and what you end up with is a specific type of "average" which when tested the vast majority of people confirmed was "beautiful". 
Agreed - nature and nurture play a part. I have a definite thing for petite blondes because I fixated on my first girlfriend who was like that and have sought out girlfriends mostly like that since.  No surprise I married someone who was neither petite nor blonde (other than suicide blonde occasionally) and over time found the attraction waning.  So I've obviously re-programmed or specialised my natural instincts.  The underlying preference for "perfect" (ie non aberrant) features remains but I can still find a range of women highly attractive - at least for a 60 minute punt. :)

I agree with a lot of this. At a basic level, however shallow this may sound, I am not attracted to abnormal or deformed women. Therefore I am making an active decision not to have sex with women with abnormalities. However plenty of women are not abnormal, just plain and not sexy at all.

You are right, plain is often used as a euphemism for ugly. Originally the word was meant to convey a sense of the unremarkable but over time I agree it has come to be used more and more as a euphemism. In my previous post, I used it  with its original meaning, I wasn't trying to imply you are chasing mingers. I was only asking are you really chasing average girls, because it is not the impression I get from your reviews ?

If all of the points of averageness and sexual attraction are true, the overall gene pool should be becoming more and more sexually attractive with each passing generation. The question I would ask you Quesadilla, is do you step out of your door each day and think to yourself "wow, most of the women I see out and about are gorgeous" ? After thousands of years of human history, hasn't humanity had enough time to have become mostly beautiful ? I think most people who try the doorstep challenge would have to say no.

Having said all this, I totally agree with you that it is still very possible to find some fantastic looking wgs for a nice punt, I really don't understand some of the "there aren't any good wgs anymore" posts.

Ravanelli

  • Guest
Many punters here, on AW and elsewhere are describing cute/pretty-ish girls as ‘stunning’ or ‘gorgeous’ giving them ‘9.5s’ and ‘10s’ while being ‘7.5s’ or ‘8s’ at best although numerical scores mean absolutely nothing without assigning a meaning to these numbers with some sort of scale or at least *consistency* throughout various reviews on different girls. There are various types of punters who give 10s too easily and misuse the term ‘gorgeous’ or ‘stunning’. These are:
(i) the fluffies – no comment …
(ii) the inconsistent, attention-seeking, 8m long snakes who post reviews during post-punting euphoria only to do a spectacular U turn afterwards. Their opinion or judgement is worth exactly 0p.
(iii) the tasteless-they are those who will value eating McDonalds the same as or even better than eating a steak in a world renown restaurant. I guess they are those who also voted Jennifer Aniston as the hottest woman of all time (see here) … WTF??? !!!!
(iv) those who refer to the body attractiveness only-For them a slim body and/or a good pair of tits and/or a nice arse makes the girl gorgeous. It should not…
(v) the cheapskates- they also belong to categories (iii) and/or (iv) but with the additional characteristic of having variable taste. They shag mingers given the price is low and praise them for their looks and then they become ultra-critical for pretty girls who are over their budget claiming utter bullocks that they can find *many* similarly good looking girls priced lower.
(vi) the biased cheerleading fanboys-these are very misleading as they give biased top marks to their merely pretty favourite regulars while being normally unbiased and with correct judgement for girls they see for first time.

Yes, beauty is in the eye of the beholder (or beerholder) but it is (i)one thing having a disagreement of whether Megan Fox is more beautiful than Adrianna Lima or the opposite and (ii) a totally different thing equating plain Jane with them. But I never post to shit on others’ reviews to express my own different taste. After all what makes my own taste the ‘right’ one? It’s their money, their selections, their punts and I am glad they have good time. I simply never trust them when I read their reviews of girls with no face pics or photoshopped body pics. For the record I only trust the opinion of 4-5 UKP members … not that I have ever been someone who awaits from others to TOFFT in first place but that’s a different story.  :hi:

This is a great post and mirrors a lot of my own views, certainly in regard to contextualising someones view on the girls level of attractiveness. I myself trust very few punters opinions with regard to positive affirmation of the girl and I have a number of punters on this site whose views I trust implicitly, unfortunately only from the perspective that if they say they're attractive then I avoid them. That's not to say that I'm right and they're wrong but clearly we have different tastes. For the record, if I say a girl is plain then she is just that, I would try to avoid using the word 'ugly' though I do remember referring to someone as 'deeply unattractive,' I think this description equally serves the purpose. Generally I am more than happy to punt with 'plain' girls with good bodies though I prefer an attractive girl with a good body. I'm also a sucker for a big natural pair of tits and have chastised myself on several occasions for choosing what turned out to be a minger based on a pic of her tits! Don't do it!     I remember sometime ago a survey was carried out asking men if they rather have an attractive girlfriend with a fat body or a plain girlfriend with a hot body, the plain girl was chosen by some margin. Of course there are other reasons based on your own level of attractiveness. I firmly believe that you stand more chance of a successful punt if the girl sees you as being on par with her own level of attractiveness. I put on quite a bit of weight a couple of years ago and noticed that the quality of my punts declined noticeably, I'm sure it was because I was a fat fucker and not as attractive as I used to be. The weight is coming off now and I'm very careful about what I eat and consequently I am noticing an improvement in my punts. AW reviews consistently fuck me off when girls are described as beautiful by fluffy fuckwits but hey, maybe in their world she is beautiful. The recent Lovelylola springs to mind, she wouldn't scare the kids but she was at best plain. I used to think that seeing a less attractive girl with a good body was a better formula for maximising my chances of a good punt but my views have shifted lately, especially after a couple of shit punts with girls who I wouldn't look twice at in the street. My last two punts have been with two very different women, both incredibly attractive within their age category and they have both helped shift my view that the plain girls will provide a better service. Thankfully there are attractive WG's out there but I think they are difficult to find because I still can't bring myself to choose a girl based purely on looks, I have to find her sexy and that is a different matter altogether.

Offline akauya


If all of the points of averageness and sexual attraction are true, the overall gene pool should be becoming more and more sexually attractive with each passing generation. The question I would ask you Quesadilla, is do you step out of your door each day and think to yourself "wow, most of the women I see out and about are gorgeous" ? After thousands of years of human history, hasn't humanity had enough time to have become mostly beautiful ? I think most people who try the doorstep challenge would have to say no.

Having said all this, I totally agree with you that it is still very possible to find some fantastic looking wgs for a nice punt, I really don't understand some of the "there aren't any good wgs anymore" posts.

I know you asked Quesadilla (our resident marital guidance expert ;)) but you make a good point. When you are out and about the majority of the people you see (rough guess 80% or more) both male and female are nothing but plain. There are of course some women (and men) who are above average in terms of looks and even fewer who could be described as beautiful.

I'm guessing also that the people who complain about not finding beautiful prossies and comparing them with the huge amount of stunning civvies are falling into that trick our brains play with us where we ignore things that do not stand out. They become "white noise", so we go about our daily lives looking at hundreds of people an they all look very plain but we do not notice them. However every time we bump into some of the beautiful ones they get stuck on our minds and we end up with the (mis)perception that the world is full of beautiful women and how come prossies are not beautiful. It then gets worse because we then proceed to scrutinise prossies' bodies and looks in a lot more detail than we do with civvies.

Lastly we have the old 'beauty is in the eyes of the beerholder', which despite of being a bit of a cliche it's true.

Quesadilla

  • Guest
I agree with a lot of this. At a basic level, however shallow this may sound, I am not attracted to abnormal or deformed women. Therefore I am making an active decision not to have sex with women with abnormalities. However plenty of women are not abnormal, just plain and not sexy at all.

You are right, plain is often used as a euphemism for ugly. Originally the word was meant to convey a sense of the unremarkable but over time I agree it has come to be used more and more as a euphemism. In my previous post, I used it  with its original meaning, I wasn't trying to imply you are chasing mingers. I was only asking are you really chasing average girls, because it is not the impression I get from your reviews ?

If all of the points of averageness and sexual attraction are true, the overall gene pool should be becoming more and more sexually attractive with each passing generation. The question I would ask you Quesadilla, is do you step out of your door each day and think to yourself "wow, most of the women I see out and about are gorgeous" ? After thousands of years of human history, hasn't humanity had enough time to have become mostly beautiful ? I think most people who try the doorstep challenge would have to say no.

Having said all this, I totally agree with you that it is still very possible to find some fantastic looking wgs for a nice punt, I really don't understand some of the "there aren't any good wgs anymore" posts.
Firstly we are only talking in this thread (my interpretation) about facial beauty / ugliness.
Before we get there - in the average population there are only a very small % of females that could ever be attractive to me personally - race, age, height and weight etc are all instantly filtering factors. Within my race / age / height / weight range there are some mingers (those with some obvious defect / aberration) and some really striking women - almost by definition most will fall somewhere in the middle. Without any obvious flaws I will find them all attractive to at least some extent.  Then they open their mouths and might instantly become more or less attractive. There are plenty of other factors that influence attraction beyond facial beauty.

Maybe the OP is finding an inherent "ugliness" in WG's from a personality perspective that colours his perception of them? Very difficult to separate these things in my experience. Definitely 2 or 3 of my favourite WG'S I click with really well personally so I'm sure that colours my rating of them - hence why I prefaced my original comment with the rather obvious statement that this is completely subjective.
A great personality might make a 6 into a 7, a 7 into an 8 etc.

Re the gene pool surely it will become more average over time? 
« Last Edit: December 02, 2014, 06:35:22 pm by Quesadilla »

I know you asked Quesadilla (our resident marital guidance expert ;)) but you make a good point. When you are out and about the majority of the people you see (rough guess 80% or more) both male and female are nothing but plain. There are of course some women (and men) who are above average in terms of looks and even fewer who could be described as beautiful.
...
Lastly we have the old 'beauty is in the eyes of the beerholder', which despite of being a bit of a cliche it's true.

Your input is of course welcome Akauya. What you describe is very much what I have observed in daily life. And beauty being in the eye of the beholder, or indeed beerholder is very true. Quesadilla, I do agree that the gene pool will become more average but we probably both have a very different opinion on what this averageness is/will be like. My points have primarily been made about facial beauty, though I admit I haven't really specified. I think there are far more women with hot bodies than with beautiful or even just pretty, faces. Anyway, Quesadilla and Akauya, I wish you both above average punting  :), whatever above average means  :unknown: