Degrees of Attractiveness

A comment made after my last entry brought up an intersting topic. Interesting to me, anyway. Can a man be "stunning"? I suppose if any man could be called that, the senator could be. However, I think there are boundaries with the terminology used in
particularilizing a person's appearance. I tend to employ a certain scale of degrees/categories. I wonder if I'm the only one who does this.
These categories are in no specific order. They aren't ranked; one is not more "attractive" than the others. Attactiveness is too complex, too intricate, and too individualized for ranking. And, of course, as they say, beauty is all in the eye of the beholder, right? I'm sure that if we all had a scale, they would all be vastly different. Furthermore, a person can fall into any number of combinations within the scale. Most people, actually, are more than just one. And there could be a completely different scale for UNattractiveness, but I try to focus on the positive. I'll run through my scale and give some well-known examples for emphasis.

For men, 4 categories:
1. Cute (ex: Zach Braff)
2. Handsome (ex: Luke Wilson)
3. Hot (ex: Ty Pennington)
4. Sexy (ex: Dave Matthews)

For women, 4 categories:
1. Cute (ex: Meg Ryan-the early years. She scares me now.)
2. Pretty (ex: Kate Winslet)
3. Hot (ex: Jennifer Aniston)
4. Beautiful (ex: Ann Curry -from the Today Show)

There are extreme categories for each sex, as well. "Beautiful","stunning", "exquisite"....are, indeed, terms I use to describe men, but are more intimate descriptions based on non-physical factors like personality and inner beauty. We all hear "drop dead gorgeous"for both sexes, but I don't know that I've used it for either. "Sexy" is a term I don't use often to describe other women, but I constantly use it to describe myself. It's my blog, so I can say that.