This got contentious on my latest Desire review. To me, this might be the stupidest thing to nitpick a reviewer on, because EVERYONE KNOWS it's subjective.
Mine operates like a normal distribution with an average of 5, standard deviation of between 1 and 1.5, and it's the same scale for all women of childbearing age.
<5 = Below average, something about her face/body is gross, whether it's a misshapen face or morbid obesity. 5 = Average for the population, not dancer average. If you found 100 girls between 20-40 on the street and ranked them by looks, she'd be right in the middle. 6 = Cute. Pleasing to look at. Sexually attractive. Top 25% of the group. 7 = Beautiful. Will catch your eye in the crowd. Top 10% of the group. 8 = Hot. Rarefied territory. You have to make an effort not to stare. Top 3%. 9 = An angel. Drops your jaw. One of the hottest women you'll see all year. If you're lucky, the hottest girl of that group. 10 = A goddess. Holy shit, you didn't think she was genetically possible. One of the hottest you'll ever see.
And of course, who likes what is subjective.
I tend towards: curvy over spinner, brick shithouse over GND, AA/Asian/Latina over white, sexy over cute, womanly over perky.
What's your scale?


Of course, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so by necessity anyone's rating scale is going to be subjective, but using the normal distribution is the best way to approach this. It seems the tails of your distribution taper off more quickly than mine, though. I wouldn't say a below five is necessarily gross. Between 4 and 5, I would say she is just plain, maybe borderline unattractive, and not somebody I would give a second glance to if passing in the supermarket aisle. Below 4, I would say you are getting into affirmatively unattractive, and below 3 major issues. Similarly, a 7 to me is not necessarily "beautiful," but an attractive girl nevertheless. An 8 is definitely beautiful. But these are only nuances from my personal perspective and certainly not something to argue over.