This isn't acceptable. These discussions need to have more accuracy and fairness than even the highest preserved scientific studies. We need to normalize and stay consistent with our ratings.
I believe you are a brother. Being one of the few on this board, you play a critical role on this board in terms of diversity, and your input on this subject is of extreme value and importance . . . as long as you don't start pushing an agenda that huge asses with cellulite are a good thing. So you are held to a high standard of staying consistent with your ratings.
You gave this girl an 8.2, which according to the scale, means she is below Playmate material. That's already an issue. I've had a few Playmates, and she is better than at least one of them. But that's not the major issue. According to the scale, an 8.2 would mean a major college campus would have at least five hotter girls, since 8.5 consists of the few hottest girls on a campus outside of the top one or two. You also said there were "more than a very few" on Marshall's campus who look better, which "more than a very few" would mean at least four or five, minimum. That means you feel there are at least four or five, minimum, on Marshall's campus that are Playmate material (shown in the scale as 8.25 - 9). Yet you also said you didn't think Marshall has a bunch of Playmates running around. It ends up contradicting yourself. There is a lack of consistency in your stance, and we need to correct that in the next rating round.
It's the bedroom eyes (some refer to them as "droopy eyes"). Some people are attracted to bedroom eyes, some think they are bad. I'm ambivalent on the topic.
She's not married. She is barely 19.
And I agree. There are few on Marshall's campus that could be Playmate material. That aligns with the scale (Playmates ranging from 8.25 - 9).
Please don't. I've seen her, and nobody wants to see your ex-wife/current landlord.
