"Samantha"
 

As I’ve said, Hot or Not is retarded.  The ratings people give are so off as to be worthless.  However, that doesn’t mean they are arbitrary.  Hot or Not rewards certain features: big boobs/cleavage, blonde hair, mid riff shirts and prom (obviously proving that men like 18 year olds) pictures.  If you have big boobs, blonde hair and a revealing shirt on you will get a 9+ on hot or not- even if your skin, hair or face is less than optimal.  Ridiculous.

 Anyway here is the first person I’ve chosen to re-evaluate.  Let’s call her “Samantha” since we don’t know her real name.  The first thing you notice about her is she is, well, plain.  She struck me the epitome of “average girl.”  I’m sure most of you would agree with that.  But yet, her HoN score is 7.4.  That is decidedly above average.

 I’m going to assume for the purposes of this rating that she is in a college town.

 First, her rating against the rest of the women of the first world.   She is slightly better looking, in my opinion, than the average female in the first world.  I gave her a 5.10 out of 10 in this category.  Her positives are she isn’t fat by any means, and while her hips are wider than her chest, the difference is small enough to make it safe to say she has a decent figure.  Plus she is young and ostensibly healthy, which gives her points over the older women (30-45 age group; women over 45 are not considered) considered in this.

 Next to be considered is her rating against her own demographic, in this case 18-25 college girls.  I gave her a 4.85 in this context.  While, as I said above, she isn’t fat, she certainly isn’t an athlete.  To be considered “above average” in her age group she would have to cut an athletic figure, something indicative of someone who eats healthy and jogs frequently.  But this is small potatoes, since her biggest drawback is her face.  To be blunt, her nose is a bit big, her cheek bones are not high enough and she has sunken eyes.  By comparison, her body is much stronger than her face, which hurts her when compared to girls her age who tend to have better average bodies, generally speaking.

 Lastly, I compared her relative to myself, me being a 5.  So slightly better looking than me would get a 5.25 and slightly worse would get a 4.75.  Hopefully I do not sound like a deluded fool when I score her a 4.75 here.  I would say that bodily we are close to the same, with me erring to the too skinny side and her erring slightly in the opposite.  Facially, I would say I am slightly better.  We both have large sized noses, but my cheek bones are higher.  Add to that I am on average more tanned than she is and that I have significantly better eyes than she does, so I feel comfortable saying that I am slightly more attractive than her.

 Her composite score, since these three categories are weighted differently, is 4.93.  She is very slightly below average, well within the margin of error and we within the margin of my relative rating affecting it.  Clearly, this score makes sense.  There is no way she is a 6, which would be sufficient to label her “pretty” since she isn’t pretty.  There is also no way she is below a 4, which would be where people with much more serious flaws would reside.  So a 5 is about right, and I’d say that erring to a smidgen below a 5 is probably the most accurate.