>>41261
>Not ayrt
wat

>as objective as possible. Subjective ratings are worthless
I don't even know how to say in any non-offensive way how wrong you are, if you think rating the looks on a 10 scale is in ANY way objective. Let alone at the same time claiming "subjective ratings are worthless". lmao
You judging somebody by calling them 10/10 or saying they are "the most fuckable being in existence" is the exact same thing in the end.

This goes for >>41270 too, obviously.

Surely we can agree that there is a difference between having a preference (e.g. blonde over brunette) and saying "you are objectively inferior", even though it's still an subjective rating. And I'm sure we can agree on this isn't people going to a math competition, beauty pageant or arguing for a higher salary where they themselves ask to get judged and compared.
All this ignores even that there are different beauty standards in different societies. Some people are into tits, others into asses and others again stroke their cock to fucking feet or armpits. If you go to Korea, they dig chicks with gigantic eyebags, some African tribes put plates into their lips and ears, muslims wanna fuck 10 year old burkas.
It's an utterly futile and pointless endeavour to claim there is any objective rating system for beauty, especially if it's just a random person throwing out a 6.7/10.

>Even an ex, for example.
No, truly loving somebody is just different than anything else. It's a form of attraction that is hard to put into words and absolutely impossible to put into numbers. Shit simply makes you go crazy, it's a form of primal lust.
Unless you got some asexual issues going on, I guess.