http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/articl...e-you.html
There is or was (site inactive) an app called Anaface, which assesses the attractiveness of women via standardized factors and basically lets them feel good about their Hamster-state. Obviously the app completely ignores age.
How would You guys rate them?
also:
How would You rate them at their prime (likely estimate)?
Also see the absurdly high ratings even at their age - in my opinion most would not merit that high ratings even at their prime. Mind you also guys that the pics are the very best that can be possibly made - those women are somewhat famous and look worse in most of the other pictures.
[attachment=18451]
1. Samantha Brick, 43, score: 8.01 out of 10
[attachment=18452]
2. Petronella Wyatt, 42, score: 8 out of 10
[attachment=18459]
3. Liz Hoggard, 51, score: 8.61 out of 10
[attachment=18453]
4. Eve Ahmed, 54, score: 7.1 out of 10
[attachment=18454]
5. Sandra Howard, 73, score: 8.41 out of 10
[attachment=18455]
6. Kate Mulvey, 49, score: 5.75 out of 10
Of course those women may be wonderful mothers and truly be highly attractive to their husbands who grew old with them. It is just that the app as well as the article is another example of the hamster-rationalization that is supposed to convince WOMEN-KIND that it is fine to blow your 20s and even your 30s on carousel-riding, since special snowflake can still get a 8,6 attractiveness count at the age of 42!
Men can be very attractive at that age too, so why can't women right?!!!!
The HAMSTER is strong in this one!
____________________
Personal score:
1. Samantha Brick, 43, score: 8.01 out of 10
NOW: 3.3
Prime: 6 (maybe)
2. Petronella Wyatt, 42, score: 8 out of 10
NOW: 3.5
PRIME: 7 (with precaution)
3. Liz Hoggard, 51, score: 8.61 out of 10
NOW: 2
PRIME: 4.8
4. Eve Ahmed, 54, score: 7.1 out of 10
NOW: 3.3
PRIME: 6
5. Sandra Howard, 73, score: 8.41 out of 10
NOW: 3.7 (extra points for staying in best shape at age 73)
PRIME: 8.5 (was famous model)
6. Kate Mulvey, 49, score: 5.75 out of 10
NOW: 1.5
PRIME: 4
There is or was (site inactive) an app called Anaface, which assesses the attractiveness of women via standardized factors and basically lets them feel good about their Hamster-state. Obviously the app completely ignores age.
How would You guys rate them?
also:
How would You rate them at their prime (likely estimate)?
Also see the absurdly high ratings even at their age - in my opinion most would not merit that high ratings even at their prime. Mind you also guys that the pics are the very best that can be possibly made - those women are somewhat famous and look worse in most of the other pictures.
[attachment=18451]
1. Samantha Brick, 43, score: 8.01 out of 10
[attachment=18452]
2. Petronella Wyatt, 42, score: 8 out of 10
[attachment=18459]
3. Liz Hoggard, 51, score: 8.61 out of 10
[attachment=18453]
4. Eve Ahmed, 54, score: 7.1 out of 10
[attachment=18454]
5. Sandra Howard, 73, score: 8.41 out of 10
[attachment=18455]
6. Kate Mulvey, 49, score: 5.75 out of 10
Of course those women may be wonderful mothers and truly be highly attractive to their husbands who grew old with them. It is just that the app as well as the article is another example of the hamster-rationalization that is supposed to convince WOMEN-KIND that it is fine to blow your 20s and even your 30s on carousel-riding, since special snowflake can still get a 8,6 attractiveness count at the age of 42!
Men can be very attractive at that age too, so why can't women right?!!!!
The HAMSTER is strong in this one!
____________________
Personal score:
1. Samantha Brick, 43, score: 8.01 out of 10
NOW: 3.3
Prime: 6 (maybe)
2. Petronella Wyatt, 42, score: 8 out of 10
NOW: 3.5
PRIME: 7 (with precaution)
3. Liz Hoggard, 51, score: 8.61 out of 10
NOW: 2
PRIME: 4.8
4. Eve Ahmed, 54, score: 7.1 out of 10
NOW: 3.3
PRIME: 6
5. Sandra Howard, 73, score: 8.41 out of 10
NOW: 3.7 (extra points for staying in best shape at age 73)
PRIME: 8.5 (was famous model)
6. Kate Mulvey, 49, score: 5.75 out of 10
NOW: 1.5
PRIME: 4