>>41349
I knew you were going to ride on the "MUH AS POSSIBLE", thus why I very clearly stated it's not
>in ANY way objective
Both ways of rating a person are ZERO percent objective.

>Giving to a recessed chin balding manlet or a blue haired land whale a 10/10 is worthless and stupid.
Congratulations, you just understood that those ratings are arbitrary.
Now maybe you can make that mental jump to the logical conclusion that all ratings like that are arbitrary and not in any way objective.

>>41350
>There are no women getting wet over a man's beer gut or fondling his moobs.
You are incredibly retarded if you think this.
Discussing this further with you is utterly pointless, since your assumptions are not based on reality. As was to be expected.