MARS - Maverick's Appearance Rating System

[maverick73]

I use a much simpler and more intuitive system ... I look, and if I like what I see then she's classed a "looker". Lookers don't fit into formulas. They just are. Eden darling ... you're defintiely a top rated looker in my books.

Not much more to it than that Mav. If you start assessing leg proportion to breast size ... hell, once you get out the tape measure and the laser level I find that you tend to get slapped a lot.
Tom

Tom, my favourite Mav-hater,

Simple systems are for simple people. I consider myself a sophisticated man, hence my sophisticated system.

However, my system at it's core is just as simple as yours. Is she's a looker, she's an 8.0. If not, but pretty, she's probably in the 7.0 range. If she's average, she's a 6.0 and I probably didn't notice. And if she's still beautiful when she wakes up in the morning after I finished making love to her the night before, she's a 9.0. See, real simple. The details I posted are for the people that want to get into HOW I arrive at a rating, but at it's core, my system is very simple. It grows with you and becomes as sophiscated as the user wants it to be.

Now, on to the funny side... you know how Hatrick has his flashlight? Well, if I was a WWE wrestler, my gimmick should be a tape measure and calculator. I should say to a SP, ok do you mind if I take some quick measurements and make some calculations? (a few min later) ... ok mam, I've done the math. You don't meet my criteria. See ya . Crap, that was a bad joke. I'm going to take some heat for that.

 

[maverick73]

....personally, my taste in women is not static. Somedays, the girl that gets the 9.0 - 9.5 rating (instant wood) will be a 5'8" blonde, 34C-26-34 and 125#. The next day, the same rating might not go to the blonde, but to the 5'4" redhead who is endowed with a 36D-28-36 figure and 140#. Occasionally, the 5'2", 100#, 32A-22-30, Asain spinner is the ticket. And since I generally consider tall women to be sexy, a 6'4" (in stilettos) brunette at 130# and 34B-25-36 would be The Girl the next day. Hope you are reading this VV. That's last one is you!!

The world is a veritible cornicopia of beautiful women. This is why I like life as a hobbyist, I get to indulge all of the above passions and more. So, when I post a review, can the rating be described as objective? Nope and I have no interest in trying to be objective. It is my sexual experience that I am enjoying and it is that experience that I am going to report.

In fact, I think the idea of an "objective" review is pretty fallacious. Some of the things that go into a review is completely subjective. Does the SP have candles lite in the apartment? Is it possible that the smell of the candle might change the way I see the SP? Can the candles, her smell, the light in the room and the music she is playing on her stereo make her look more beautiful than if I saw her on the street in t-shirt and jeans with her hair in a ponytail? I do not know for certain, but I think it is possible.

Again, what is she wearing? Can what she is wearing increase my perception of how beautiful she is? Again, its possible.

How about the sound of her voice? I know this is one that I respond to. If she has a kind of weak, high pitched or squeeky voice, she probably loses a bit in her rating. Conversely, if she has a rich and mellow female voice, the rating goes up. A deep (for a woman) voice makes her boobs bigger, her legs longer and her ass firmer. I'm a sucker for a sexy voice.

I do understand the desire to establish a purely "objective" standard for the purpose of making reviews more uniform. It would be nice, I just do not think it is possible.

But please, do not let me interfere with your work, Mav. Never let it be said that I discourage the research of my comrades.

1. Oh believe me, I like my variety as well. The "hollywood" test is just a generalization and only one of many tests at my disposal. I can sometimes have a "hard on" for a girl next door type for reasons only I know, or even a 6.0 with a sexy voice that said something dirty to me in my ear. However, ALL ELSE BEING EQUAL, if you were at a wedding party, and a 7.0, an 8.0, and a 9.0 were around you, you would mostly like feel "that loving feeling" down there for the 8.0 and 9.0 more so than the 7.0.

2. I've incorporated the clothes into my system already. A sharp dresser can usually gain 0.5 to even a full point when combined with proper makeup and other beauty enhancers. Where I draw the line on clothes is the 9.0 mark. 9.0 and above should be reserved for naturally beautiful women, that are at least an 8.0 with even average clothes and little makeup. No amount of good clothing IMO can put an average or even above average girl into 9.0 territory.

3. A sexy voice is VERY important in the grand scheme of things, but it has nothing to do with LOOKS. That is AURAL, not VISUAL. Now, not to pick on poor Ms. Crofton, but her voice is one of the most annoying I've ever heard. Robin Meade on CNN has a nice voice. Jennifer Hedger on TSN has a nice voice too, but it can sometimes border on being masculine. But that's the topic of a whole new thread. Voice has nothing to do with looks.

4. Of course it's not possible to have an ENTIRELY objective ratings system, but this can at least set some standards to make it as objective as POSSIBLE.

 

[maverick73]

All I want to be is a 5... OH please can I be a 5 ?

Mid-range is a perfect place, the less to disappoint and the more to improve on... WooT

Ok, let's see here. I went to your website. Here is my assessment.

1. You've done a good job with your hair and done the best you could with your face. It shows you care.
2. The overall proportion of your figure is good in terms of the hourglass shape.
3. You're comfortable with your weight and being a BBW, but in my system, your excessive weight puts you into 5.0 category. You smoke cigs, and it seems to be taking it's toll with premature age marks in the facial area. A healthier diet with reduced fat, more fruits and veggies, cutting the cigs, and some regular exercise should help with a bit more tone and definition as well as a younger looking face to put you into 5.5 category.
4. It's obvious you were once in 7.0 or possibly even 8.0 territory with that ass that you used to have in that picture with the thong and garter.

Was my assessment more or less bang on?

 

[maverick73]

...that's quite the document that you drafted...not that I bothered to read the whole f-in thing!

I guess you have a lot of time on your hands when you're not at TopGun?

Send my regards to Katie Holmes

Don't worry horneydude, once I've revised it, I'll have a MARS-LIGHT version for the mentally challenged for you and mustangjoe

You know how tough it can be to be at Top Gun. I got Jester chickening out by going for the hard deck, Iceman calling me dangerous, a beautiful intructor asking me out for dinner to learn about the mig, and if that's not enough, I recently had to deal with the death of my best friend Goose. And if that STILL isn't enough, I got Viper, Jester, and others on my case for not being able to get back in the saddle right away and not engaging. "Kid can't back in the saddle, won't engage"

Shit, life as Maverick is tough.

As for Katie Holmes, she's a 7.0, 7.5 at best. Girl next door look, pretty, but not BEAUTIFUL. Kidman was the best girl Cruise had. I guess he got sick of a good thing after 10 years.

 

[maverick73]

My taste in women and how attracted to them depends on how exciting and interesting they are. Looks are definitely second!

For example, if she likes to take risks, dresses sexy and daring in public, is a nympho, is imaginative/creative, is intelligent, is kind-hearted... that gets her pretty close to a 9 in my book. A woman like that can keep me enthralled with her even as she gets old.

No shit sherlock. Same here. Looks aren't even SECOND for me. However, being that looks is the subject of this discussion, looks is what we're talking about here! We'll discuss the risk taking, sexy dressing, public daringness, nymphomaniacity (is that a word?), creativity, intelligence, and kind-heartedness in another thread. Nice try though

 

[maverick73]

Mav,

I saw the length of your thread and I was way to fucking lazy to read it, soz I have no idea what is goin on. How about a revised edition, preferably in point form for us lazy folk?

Why doesn't that surprise me? Like mentioned to Horneydude, I'll have a Children's Book version just for you. Would you like a crayon to color all the nice big pictures it'll have?

 

[maverick73]

Can you write us a thesis on rating the beauty of a girl's asshole? I'd like to read it, thanks.

I'm working on that one. Target date is April, 2007.

 

[Creole Lady Marmalade]

Maverick

This simple system you speak of is anything but. The system is downright shallow. Makes me wonder if you DO travel around with a tape measure and polaroid and take these necessary measurements when you do these Ho Booty Contests. "Oh, sorry babe, minor deduction because you're more of a pear than the desired hourglass. Work on your shoulders more then come back again in two months to see if you've moved up."

Men are ,yes, simple linear thinkers and are very visual but I'd think that they have more sense then what you've posted. This does don't make you a sophisticated man, this thread makes you superficial. Jason Alexanders' character in Shallow Hal.

I thank you for voting me as a 7 based on a torso shot. I didn't know you could tell so much by what I look like in a wet t-shirt. A few things to consider the Miss universe Pageant had a contestant who was 5'3". Playboy magazine celebrates the "girl next door", the average dress size in North America is a size 14 though with recent sympathy sizing has moved down to 12 and cellulite (once believed to be a weight issue) is a hereditary issue and over 80% of women have it.

 

[Eden]

Maverick

I know I probably seem, well, choked and I kinda am, I know that you are only trying to come up with some sort of a theory on how girls should be rated that is universal. I know that you are a nice guy, trying to do a shitty job that no one else really wants to do. The end is this, you can't be objective since your height criteria is subjective because you yourself prefer taller women to shorter more petite ones. Point taken. In order for yours or any other rating system to be clear (or somewhat clearer) you would need to take a poll maybe of a 100 random men all walks, races, and age, the majority rules (maybe your 80/20 rule here). You need more of a realistic research category than the Miss America beauty pagent and although I would have trouble modelling high fashion on a runway, I sure would not have any trouble modelling for magazines. You need to sit back and understand us women don't like to be picked apart, on good days, let alone feel like someone is scrutinizing us beyond reasonable; and in my opinion your system is unfair and unreasonable.

 

[Creole Lady Marmalade]

Maverick

You watch waaay too much television or movies and you've been brainwashed by glossy covers. Real women don't look like what you've described as ideal. Even those models or cover girls have been air-brushed, spent 2+ hours in a makeup chair, hair that has been teased, wired or extensions added to the crown, a good photographer spending 2+ hours to get a good shot with flattering lighting and the pic is still tweaked. Anyone remember the Kate Winslet/Vanity Fair fiasco?

 

[smackyo]

That would depend on whether you are tall enough!!

damn!!!! i just went and saw your pics and yes you should be happy with your "compact" stature. height doesn't mean a damn thing to me. sometimes i like'em tall but i prefer shorter girls.

 

[Very Veronica]

man from mars

Don't know about your rating system (i've got add in addition to alzheimers) but you've certainly come up with a more appropriate moniker for yourself.

 

[maverick73]

Don't know about your rating system (i've got add in addition to alzheimers) but you've certainly come up with a more appropriate moniker for yourself.

I guess that would make you Veronica From Venus.

PS You may want to spell "add" ADD. I had to read that twice to figure out whether you made a gramatical error or you meant Attention Deficit Disorder.

I will respond to others (Eden, Creole, etc.) in due time. I do have "work" to do, which includes visiting a lovely lady from out of town (ooohhh, who could that be?).

 

[bigmoe69er]

Mav, being under 5'3" IS NOT a negative! I love petite women, many of whom are under 5'3".

---Dr. Moe

 

[Massagegirl]

This isn't bad actually...

10.0 - a 9.5 with an extra 0.5 saying this girl suits me perfectly. There are many beautiful women in the world. Most people cannot objectively dispute she is at least a 9.0 or 9.5, but to me, she is a 10.0.

9.5 - a 9.0 that meets all the smaller more stringent criteria to get that extra 0.5 points. This could mean nicer hair, facial features, firmer and shapelier overall figure, breasts, buttocks, legs, etc. This is a VERY DIFFICULT rating to achieve and should be reserved for the most beautiful of women.

9.0 - take away all the makeup and beauty enhancers. How does she look in the morning? If she still gets 2nd looks, she is a 9.0 in my book.

8.5 - Somebody that can be mistaken as a 9.0, but upon closer inspection, is closer to a 7.5 to 8.0 when all the "beauty enhancers" are taken away. Still, give her full marks for effort to look nice for her man. This can also apply to former 9.0's where age has taken it's toll and she's no longer "quite there."

8.0 - this woman will get 2nd looks whereever she goes. With experience, you should be able to tell almost immediately. If in a public place, quickly apply the head turning test or bitch looks test for quick verification. Usually, this woman takes care of herself with a reasonable diet, exercise, and if a bit overweight with love handles, makes up for it in other ways.

7.5 - this woman has the potential to turn heads, but is not quite there yet. With a bit of work, she will be in head turning territory. This could also apply to the girl next door look, whose goal is not to turn heads, but rather to look shy and demure, but prettier than average. The maximum possible without gaining unwanted attention.

7.0 - girl next door look, with the potential to have potential to turn heads. The more reserved pretty look that isn't immediately noticeable in a room. Nice on the eyes still. Some prefer this type, but that doesn't make them BEAUTIFUL, just PRETTY.

6.0 - average girl. These are dime a dozen. Most wouldn't give them a 2nd thought.

5.0 - below average. Is still clearly feminine. - edited 3:00 am June 21st by Annalise's request. Took out the word barely.

4.0 - does not make any effort to look healthy and feminine. Overweight, poor diet, visible body hair due to laziness to shave, etc. In other words, she just doesn't care.

3.0 - will make you cringe to look at her and cause quivers to run down your spine.

2.0 - very very unfeminine. Will make you wonder if this person was born female. It will be hard to tell if she is female or male.

1.0 - almost looks like a man.

0.0 - IS a man!

But the height thing is ridiculous! A 5 foot tall woman can be perfect in every way, why on earth would she not be a 10? Tom Cruise is a 9-10 and he's super short! Height should not enter into it.

I am surprised to see so many women up in arms about this! The customers are going to rate us just like a food critic rates a restaurant, it's the nature of doing business! So your choices are a) being rated improperly by guys like Wiggley and coming out a 5 or b)having a standard version so the numbers are at least in the right ballpark. There is no c)somehow get every guy to stop using a rating scale because it's "degrading". This is after all an escort review board and part of a review is a rating for some people. We can keep the old system brought in by Hipster where only BBBJ rate us a 10? Although that should be for services, not looks.

Lady Creole brought up a very good point and that is most guys have no idea of how make-up affects a girls looks, or that all models are airbrushed for magazines!! I remember watching Survivor, the one with twig and stick, and one of the guys in the room was all "that heidi (twig) isn't even very pretty." Then at the finale when they are all cleaned up his tongue was hanging out of his mouth and he was all "wow, she IS hot." And I couldn't resist pointing out "it's called make-up and hair products!"

One more negative, sorry Mav, is that I don't know where you hang out but if 80% of the guys in a room turned their heads, 60% would get dumped on the spot by their Gf's for oogling other women, no matter how hot. Maybe if you said at a singles club 80% turn their heads, that would make sense, or on the street. I turn heads sometimes and I am no way a 9, I'm told I'm a 7, which is fine by me, I know I'll never be 21 again. However without make-up, I'm probably a 5, a lot of women are plain without any make-up (even beautiful ones). I like the way you did mention that hair, skin, clothes etc can bring you up a notch. I'm all over that!

 

[lenharper]

This thread has a real "beauty and the geek" feel to it.

 

[Creole Lady Marmalade]

I am surprised to see so many women up in arms about this! The customers are going to rate us just like a food critic rates a restaurant, it's the nature of doing business! So your choices are a) being rated improperly by guys like Wiggley and coming out a 5 or b)having a standard version so the numbers are at least in the right ballpark. There is no c)somehow get every guy to stop using a rating scale because it's "degrading". This is after all an escort review board and part of a review is a rating for some people. We can keep the old system brought in by Hipster where only BBBJ rate us a 10? Although that should be for services, not looks.

What some of us SPs are up in arms about is not the fact that we weren't rated higher, it's that looks cannot be generalized and are only and always subjective. Like snowflakes, no two SPs in looks are alike. Every client has there own opinion about who they find attractive. It is a review board but reviews on looks can be cleaned up and a lot less crass by that I mean an actual number. One guy here describes an asian SP as fuckin ugly quite possibly less than a 5, another guy who has seen the same SP describes her as pretty probably a 7. I see they are opinions, but of those lurkers who have taken a look at the review of the "5" SP probably wouldn't see her because of one guys personal opinion. They would never know if she was higher number to them unless they saw her. What I'm proposing is review without the looks number rating, say "I found her to be very pretty." or "She wasn't my type." instead of actual numbers, it's observant and not at all degrading. It's just not a fair share of hands basing looks on a number.

 

[Lurker 123]

The end is this, you can't be objective since your height criteria is subjective because you yourself prefer taller women to shorter more petite ones.
You need more of a realistic research category than the Miss America beauty pagent,
. You need to sit back and understand us women don't like to be picked apart, on good days, let alone feel like someone is scrutinizing us beyond reasonable; and in my opinion your system is unfair and unreasonable.

To Mav,
Eden's statement is right on. As I have met both you and Eden . She is right on the point about your height preferences. You are a 6ft tall guy,of course you will prefer someone who is taller. Eden is about 9 inches shorter than you,it will be very hard on her to keep up to your scale! In a way your height scale is a discriminative statement to shorter or petite women!

Your beauty scale setting is scarely.You are telling the whole world every beautiful woman has to conform to your scale of beauty. In a way,you are dictating your convention of beauty . There might be many beautiful women who are conformed to your scale ,but unfortunately they will be just like many other things else in North America lacking of uniqueness! i.e. many girls dye their hair to plantinum blonde.I prefer to see an unique individual than to see a beautiful woman conform to a scale like a product!

And last of all,your scale is hurting many ladies. One may do a boob job, a cosmetic surgery to change body parts;however many parts of our body cannot be changed.If someone( a woman or man) is borned with some not very desirable features,that person will be judged for being sub-standard!
None of us wanted to be judged unfairly.

IMHO,your document may be good as a university research thesis. It is very arguementative.I would suggest you be more open-minded about beauty. Beauty is just like fine art, it is impossible to define what is perfect!Each person is perfect and unique with their own right!!

 

[Creole Lady Marmalade]

Did I tell you guys my last boyfriend was 6'7" and I'm 5'0". His last girlfriend was 5'11". He said he preferred to be with someone he could curl like a dumb bell, me. Small precious.

 

[Damaged]

Lurker 123,

I think you missed the point of the thread. It is "Maverick's appearance Rating System" not someone elses. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with his scale but at least he took the time to define it so now I understand when he rates a woman an 8.5 what it is based on.