First and foremost, I must say, this is a science. There is absolutely no room for emotion in this debate. Whether the Reader hates/likes/loves a woman is completely irrelevant for what we are about to do. We are looking through a microscope at these women and completely ignoring all that is not physical. Anything between the ears or not visible to the eye is immaterial. After this article, the Reader should be able to adequately rate any woman on the planet within just a couple of minutes.
Obviously, we’re using a 0-10 scale. However, we are dissecting the body into three parts, Above the Neck, Waist to Neck, and Waist and Below. To properly rate a woman, the Reader must attempt to objectively rate the woman in each respective category and simply calculate the average. This way we can accurately classify a woman and avoid the phrase “she’s a 10, bro” because she’s not. We need to put a stop to the reckless abandon with which so many men throw out 8, 9, and 10 ratings for women.
Every woman will be between 9.99 and 0.01 on the whole because no woman will have “perfect” characteristics in all three criteria, but a woman can have an individual characteristic that is a 10. What this means is that, essentially, there’s nothing about this woman, relative to this particular category, that we can honestly critique. It is, for all intents and purposes, perfect.
The Reader will also find that there is a range of 10s, i.e. no one 10 is identical to another (unless we were to find out that Alexandra Daddario has an identical twin (which would actually mean two sets of perfect twins)). This has to do with frame, symmetry, and continuity respective to each woman’s body. Taken within their bodily context, each woman’s characteristics can constitute a 10 while looking different than the 10 next to her.
We are leaving aside the bottom of the barrel. In every case, the range of 0.01 to 1.99 is people who are disfigured or have some hideous abnormality. This renders them terribly ugly and truly unfortunate. I won’t provide examples for these because you know who you are.
We are taking all the examples below at their prime — this is usually between the ages of 18 and 30, peaking around 22/23. For instance, when I list Jennifer Aniston I am not referencing her mediocre dance in We’re the Millers, but the first couple seasons of Friends. Without the benefits of plastic surgery, every woman begins to decline after her early twenties in the face and body.
The Normal Distribution of Attractiveness
The attractiveness of a large population will fall under a normal distribution. To properly standardize a 0-10 range, 5 will be the mean and the standard deviation will be 1.5. This means 99.73 percent of all women will fall within three standard deviations (0.5 to 9.5) from the mean. Moreover, the majority (68.27 percent) of women will fall within one standard deviation from the mean, 3.5 to 6.49. This is the “average” range. Between one and two standard deviations below the mean would be 2 to 3.49 and would constitute significantly unattractive, the 2nd to the 16th percentile. Between one and two deviations above the mean would be 6.5 to 7.99 and would be significantly attractive, the 84th to the 97.7th percentile. Below 2 was described above and 8 or higher is the top 2.28 percent of women, the stuff of wet dreams.
Last note: for each range, the first names will be closest to the lowest end of the range while the rightmost names will be closest to the top of the range. In other words, for Above the Neck attractiveness below, the fat black chick from Precious is a 2 and Whoopi Goldberg is somewhere between 3 and 3.49.
Above the Neck
Jaw/chin structure, symmetry, lips, teeth, mouth and how it fits on her face, cheekbones, nose, and how her hair accents her face.
2 – 3.49 – Precious, Whoopi Goldberg
3.5 – 4.99 – Melissa McCarthy, Mindy Kaling, Viola Davis
5 – 6.49 – Amy Schumer, Maisie Williams, Rosario Dawson
6.5 – 8 – Winona Ryder, Anna Kendrick, Kristen Stewart
8 – 9.49 – Lily James, Christina Applegate, Rebecca Ferguson
9.5 – 9.99 – Jessica Biel, Ana de Armas, Emily Ratajkowski, Kate Moss, Margot Robbie, January Jones
10 – Amber Heard, Farrah Fawcett, Denise Richards, Sophia Loren
Waist to Neck
This is the relationship between her waist and shoulders, breast size, how her breasts fit on her torso, breast quality, and shoulder/neck/arm aesthetics.
2 – 3.49 – Precious, Rebel Wilson, Melissa McCarthy
3.5 – 4.99 – Amy Schumer, Kate Flannery
5 – 6.49 – Emma Stone, Emma Watson, Gwyneth Paltrow
6.5 – 8 – Mila Kunis, Emilia Clarke, Christina Applegate
8 – 9.49 – Jessica Alba, Kaley Cuoco, Kirsten Dunst, Christina Hendricks
9.5 – 9.99 – Jennifer Aniston, Katy Perry, Brie Larson, Jessica Biel, Scarlett Johansson
10 – Emily Ratajkowski, Salma Hayek, January Jones, Alexandra Daddario, Sofia Vergara, Sophia Loren
Waist and Below
This is the waist-to-hip ratio, the hips and buttocks size comparison, and the legs as a symmetric continuation from the hips and butt. The last part is why, say, Kim Kardashian is not a 10. She has a perfect waist-to-hip ratio and a large butt, but her legs look terrible underneath her severely augmented hips and butt because there is no muscular definition and they are far too skinny. Niykee Heaton on the other hand, while having clearly augmented the same areas, has perfect legs for her hips, waist, and butt.
2 – 3.49 – Precious, Rebel Wilson, Melissa McCarthy (before weight loss)
3.5 – 4.99 – Melissa McCarthy (after weight loss), Amy Schumer
5 – 6.49 – Farrah Fawcett, Courteney Cox, Marisa Miller, Margot Robbie
6.5 – 7.99 – Christina Hendricks, Jennifer Garner, Halle Berry
8 – 9.49 – Jessica Alba, Rachel McAdams, Kim Kardashian, Alexis Ren
9.5 – 9.99 – Emily Ratajkowski, Scarlett Johansson
10 – Jennifer Lopez, Sommer Ray, Niykee Heaton, Jessica Biel, Beyonce, Iggy Azalea
I don’t care about feet, you freaks.