all those arguments about the KEY PARAMETERS that should be INCLUDED in ANY SCALE for rating / assessing the BEAUTY of a FEMALE / LADY / GIRL / WOMAN [3]

CONTINUED FROM [2]

also, for example,
ITEM 9 in TABLE 3 / TABLE C = SIZE OF BUTTOCKS,
if a lady is has an eekay/arse/ass/booty that measures 52 inches,
do you give her 100% ?

and furthermore,
if a lady has an eekay/arse/ass/booty that measures
54 inches or 60 inches or 83 inches or more,
do you give her the same 100% as someone whose eekay/arse/ass/booty measures exactly 52  inches ?

also, there may be a need to add other parameters to the tables
e.g
● BEAUTY OF SKIN COMPLEXION and LOVELINESS/BEAUTY OF SKIN
● BEAUTY OF SMILE and LOVELINESS/BEAUTY OF FACE WHEN SMILING
● SHINING/GLITTER/LUSTRE OF EYES and SHINING/GLITTER/LUSTRE OF EYES when smiling
● BEAUTY OF EYE-LASHES
● BEAUTY OF CURVE OF EYE-LASHES / BEAUTY OF CURVY NATURE OF EYE-LASHES
● BEAUTY OF LUXURIANCE of EYE-LASHES i.e BEAUTY OF LUXURIANT FULLNESS OF EYELASHES 
● BEAUTY OF HAIR
● GLITTER/LUSTRE/GLOSS/GLOSSINESS OF HAIR
● LENGTH OF HAIR

also,  you will notice that the assay for BEAUTY OF BREASTS done there consists only of

and the question now becomes, is the shape of the breast an indicator of it’s beauty ?

one set of breasts may have a more beautiful shape than another set of breasts.

so, clearly, the shape of the breasts is an indicator of beauty.

that reality should therefore be taken into consideration by the judges
if an assessment of beauty that is fair to all is to be done.
doing such a fair and just assay implies in our own instance here
that this self-evidently critical parameter of assessment of beauty
ought to be added to the relevant table[s].

doing so i.e adding it only increases the parameters of assessment and
thus aids towards obtaining a more accurate assay.

the mathematics/arithmetic of it is simply to now get
the total scores over 2100 as against 2000 and
multiply by 100 to get the result in percentages (%) (%ages ).

and while still on
the parameter of breast beauty as a component of overall beauty,
if one scores a lady with a breast size 40 DD 100%,

what score does one give a lady with breast size 45 DD, 50DD or 60DD or bigger ?

also, what score do you give a lady with a breast size 34B ?
50%? or 100%?

Yohanna, as i have stated earlier there will probably be a need to proffer
a precise scale of rating
and
clearly defined
and
agreed upon indices i.e generally acceptable indices
for the judges on the panel to go by when assessing parameters such as this.

all the same, i stand by my view that
if the above parameters are used to assess the beauty of a lady
anywhere in the world
whether in Nigeria or the United Kingdom or the United States of America
the results would both be rather fair and fairly empirical.

the parameters identified in the afore-going may
not be absolute or even clinically precise.
however, they will give
a fairly accurate assessment and a fairly universal assessment.

and in the face of any and/or all averments, if any,
for or against,
good or bad,
positive or negative,
by one or by all,
by any selective exclusive grouping or by sundry,
including
beauty experts,
organizers of beauty pageants of whatever calibre world-wide,
and other such accredited authorities on female beauty, if any,
etc, etc, etc
i stand by my views and I remain firm by my views.

thank you.

to the above / fore-going i would only add that :
beauty is by itself not a static thing
and
efforts to assay beauty using rigid parameters
would invariably produce deficient and defective net results.

by “ efforts to assay beauty using rigid parameters would invariably produce deficient and defective net results ”
i mean, for example, in this instance, Yohanna nnmaah,
that
if you look at the fore-going tables you will see that they sort of seem to

ONLY ASSAY THE BEAUTY OF A PERSON WHEN THE PERSON IS
● STATIONARY i.e NOT-MOVING
and
● (FULLY) CLOTHED.

just walking around your neigbourhood and seeing people as you pass by
to wherever it is you are headed,
you will notice that there are some people that
look more attractive and more beautiful when
they are in motion either walking or jogging or whatever. 

hyprocisy and all other such bull-shit around the world or not,
i think it will be pretty difficult for blokes around the world to deny that
there are some ladies that look just alright when they are
►standing stationary facing you
or
►moving/walking along facing you
but
when for any reasons whatever / whatsoever
you happen to be ( extremely? very? lucky? to be ) behind them when they are moving along,

you will immediately change that reflex rating of their beauty
from just alright to
exquisite or magnificent or other such very, very, very high-grade rating.

so i guess that a fair assessment would include doing
those tables A to C above again twice,
one time doing the scoring when they are IN MOTION i.e clothed and moving, walking about
and
again doing the scoring when they are IN BIKINI and moving, walking about

Yohanna ohbee nm, you will also notice that
if for the purposes of obtaining a result that is both
● fair to everyone
●  reasonably accurate in the cumulative assessment done
the scoring is done again
when they are IN BIKINI and moving, walking about

it would be
► an exercise in deliberate in-accuracy
► an exercise in deliberate negative manipulation of data collating processes
to ignore or in any other wise over-ride
doing the scoring when they are IN BIKINI and STATIONARY
just as was done when they were MORE CLOTHED and STATIONARY.

therefore the rating would need to be essentially done in 2 categories
with each major category having 2 sub-categories, viz :

[A] RATING/ SCORING DONE WHEN THEY ARE CLOTHED.
[A.1] RATING/ SCORING DONE WHEN THEY ARE CLOTHED and STATIONARY
[A.2] RATING/ SCORING DONE WHEN THEY ARE CLOTHED and IN MOTION e.g WALKING ABOUT and MOVING ABOUT

[B] RATING/ SCORING DONE WHEN THEY ARE BIKINI.
[B.1] RATING/ SCORING DONE WHEN THEY ARE IN BIKINI and STATIONARY
[B.2] RATING/ SCORING DONE WHEN THEY ARE IN BIKINI and IN MOTION e.g WALKING ABOUT and MOVING ABOUT

this invariably means that the tables and ratings will be :
[A] RATING/ SCORING DONE WHEN THEY ARE CLOTHED : 
[A.1] RATING/ SCORING DONE WHEN THEY ARE CLOTHED and STATIONARY
TABLE A – FRONT VIEW
TABLE B – SIDE VIEW
TABLE C – BACK VIEW

[A.2] RATING/ SCORING DONE WHEN THEY ARE CLOTHED and IN MOTION e.g WALKING ABOUT and  MOVING ABOUT
TABLE A – FRONT VIEW
TABLE B – SIDE VIEW
TABLE C – BACK VIEW

[B] RATING/ SCORING DONE WHEN THEY ARE IN BIKINI.
[B.1] RATING/ SCORING DONE WHEN THEY ARE IN BIKINI and STATIONARY
TABLE A – FRONT VIEW
TABLE B – SIDE VIEW
TABLE C – BACK VIEW

[B.2] RATING/ SCORING DONE WHEN THEY ARE IN BIKINI and IN MOTION e.g WALKING ABOUT and  MOVING ABOUT
TABLE A – FRONT VIEW
TABLE B – SIDE VIEW
TABLE C – BACK VIEW

statistics and science have shown the value of
doing as many sets of assessment as possible on any given data.

so, there is really no need here to begin to explain why
an assay done with a higher number of assessments will
invariably give a more accurate and more empirical result
than an assay done using only one parameter of assessment.

going back to the tables, Yohanna ormaahleechar nm,
the overall result of each person would now be the overall average
thus for example if a person scores as follows :

[A] RATING/ SCORING DONE WHEN THEY ARE CLOTHED : 
[A.1] RATING/ SCORING DONE WHEN THEY ARE CLOTHED and STATIONARY
TABLE A- FRONT VIEW = 70%
TABLE B- SIDE VIEW = 70%
TABLE C- BACK VIEW = 70%

[A.2] RATING/ SCORING DONE WHEN THEY ARE CLOTHED and IN MOTION e.g WALKING ABOUT and  MOVING ABOUT
TABLE A – FRONT VIEW = 70%
TABLE B – SIDE VIEW = 70%
TABLE C – BACK VIEW = 70% STATIONARY

[B] RATING/ SCORING DONE WHEN THEY ARE IN BIKINI.
[B.1] RATING/ SCORING DONE WHEN THEY ARE IN BIKINI and STATIONARY
TABLE A – FRONT = 90%
TABLE B – SIDE = 90%
TABLE C – STATIONARY = 90%

[B.2] RATING/ SCORING DONE WHEN THEY ARE IN BIKINI and IN MOTION e.g WALKING ABOUT and  MOVING ABOUT
TABLE A – FRONT = 90%
TABLE B – SIDE = 90%
TABLE C – STATIONARY = 90%

then you can get the result for example by saying that :
since
A.1 (%) + A.2 (%) = X%/2 i.e X% divided by 2 = A.3(%)  
and
B.1(%) + B.3(%) = Y%/2 i.e Y% divided by 2 = A.4(%)  

therefore, the RESULT (R)
will be obtained thus
A.3(%)+ A.4(%) = A.5(%)
and A.5(%)/ 2 = R(%)

i.e to say
A.3(%)+ A.4(%) = A.5(%)
and A.5(%) divided by 2 = R(%)

and in effect therefore that
A.5(%) = 2R(%)
A.5(%) = 2 X R(%)
and
as we have noted earlier :
R(%) = A.5(%) divided by 2 , i.e
R(%) = A.5(%) / 2

keying in the figures we used in the example,
we have in this instance :

A.1 (70%) + A.2 (70%) = 140%
140%/2 i.e 140% divided by 2 = A.3(70%)  

and
B.1(90%) + B.2(90%) = 180%
180%/2 i.e 180% divided by 2 = B.3(90%)  

therefore,
A.3(70%)+ B.3(90%) / 2 = R(%)
i.e to say
A.3(70%)+ B.3(90%) divided by 2 = R(%)

A.3(70%)+ B.3(90%) = (160%)
160% / 2 i.e ( 160%) divided by 2 = R(%)
80%  = R(%)
and therefore,
the RESULT (R) of this person = 80%

as i have said earlier, Yohanna ohbee nm,
this a topic that gets folks all excited. and sometimes agitated too.

men. women. boys. girls. she-males. he-shes. hermaphrodites. no gender people.
they all have an opinion and they all have a thing or two
.. often times much more than a thing or two ..
to say on this subject matter.

it is also a topic that when discussed
the observation has included
the noticing that
some usually very quiet and non-talkative blokes
tend to get very verbose
.. especially when the beer is moving in their systems

the observation has also included
the noticing that
when this topic is discussed
these sort of ordinarily rather non-talkative blokes
become as talkative
.. sometimes more talkative ..
than their usually more talkative peers

and
all sorts of blokes with all sorts of different types of personality
seem to altogether
actually become all highly agitated
and
reveal that they are greater experts on the subject of
the body of the female human-being
than holders of solid university degrees in
human anatomy, human physiology and all.

when discussed in beer parlours and other such places
the observation has included
the noticing that
the conversation[s] tend[s] to get very loud
and
the intensity of feeling[s] lead to heated, ferocious? arguments
especially when
the blokes have generally downed 2 or more bottles of beer on the average
and
there is a general air in the place that
the good-timing is going good that day.

and by the way, Yohanna nm,
another funny thing about beer and beer parlours and other such places
i.e
another observation about beer and beer parlours and other such places
is probably that one of the wonders of more than enough beer
is that
when the person is drunk i.e has had more than enough beer
it shows you the negative .. and therefore the real .. character of a person which is normally hidden / covered up when the person is sober.

and Yohanna nnkeh nm,
leaving beer, beer parlours, taverns, pubs, clubs, other such places
and
going back to our subject matter of beauty
Yohanna ohbee nm, i aver again that
all the same, i stand by my view that
if the fore-going parameters are used to assess the beauty of a lady anywhere in the world
whether in Nigeria or the United Kingdom or the United States of America
the results would both be rather fair and fairly empirical.

as i have started earlier, Yohanna nnkeh nm,
the parameters identified in the fore-going may not be absolute or even clinically precise.
however, they will give
a fairly accurate assessment and a fairly universal assessment.

and again, Yohanna aezeegboh nm,
i say forthrightly … without fear or favour,
in the face of any and/or all averments, if any,
for or against,
good or bad,
positive or negative,
by one or by all,
by any selective,exclusive grouping or by sundry,
including
beauty experts,
organizers of beauty pageants of whatever calibre world-wide, etc
that
i stand by my views and i remain firm by my views.

again, Yohanna ormaahleechar nm, thank you.