Like with most things observed in nature, if you take a big sample, it will follow
normal distribution. Female "beauty" is no exception. On both ends of the scale, you'll have few beautiful and few ugly faces and bodies. The distribution will fall, pretty much, within
three sigma rule of thumb. That is, about 68% of females would fall within one standard deviation from the average (
mean) and about 95% within two standard deviations from the average. How does that convert to the arbitrary, non-scientific,
ordinal scale ranking commonly used?
I can't really tell. You'd say, aha! You're non-the-wiser. Yet, I'll try.
A very rough rule of thumb, if so-called girl with assigned attractiveness of "5" would be equal to average, then within one standard deviation we could include "3", "4", "6", and "7", meaning 68%, that is 2/3 of females are in this category of attractiveness. Let's add "2" and "8" to fall within two standard deviations, that is 95% of females would encompass rank from "2" up to "8". Thus, "0", "1", "9" and "10" would constitute about no more than 5% of the females. Since we're not interested in the "0" and "1", then we'd have 2.5% of the female population in the rank of "9" and "10", that is some 2.5 out of 100, randomly sampled females from a given population would be of that standard of attractiveness - in common speak - they would be "hot".
Now, this is
very non-scientific, and one can create those scales with different numerical values (any
n point scale you wish to come with, be it an ordinal, fractional or what-have-you scale
ad libitum. The 10 point scale just happens to be a useful
heuristic which allows men to exchange suboptimal information about how attractive female in question is. If you tell me she was a "7", I will (probably) get the idea what you mean and
vice-versa.
Nevertheless, majority of heterosexual males have neurobiologically evolved, thus hard-wired well-working system in the brain for assessment of females' reproductive fitness (that is, beauty). Essentially, it's a
multifactor system, where not only visual cues but also auditory, olfactory, tactile, and sociocultural cues are at play for us to make a decision whom we deem attractive. Consider
major histocompatibility complex. Roughly speaking, the less similar immune system of a potential mating partner, according to some scientific research, the more probable it is your brain will assess him/her as a better potential mating partner, for the offspring will benefit from even better immune system and, in consequence, from a greater chance for survival and reproduction. To summarise there is much more to beauty than meets the eye.
So, is there a "perfect 10"? The answer is "yes" and "no". We can agree upon objective measures, but the subjective are valuator dependent. Thus, it will always be, to a certain degree, to a question "Was she hot?", an answer "Well, it depends whom you ask".
For the curious, here's an article from the Wall Street Journal about the bell curve and attractiveness:
The average woman has average looks.
____________________
My
Adventures in Game updates on the go:
twits by Max Detrick
Unbowed. Unbent. Unbroken.
I don’t ever give up. I mean, I’d have to be dead or completely incapacitated.
-- Elon Musk