Bo Derek

I read an article recently talking about the old “on a scale of one to ten” ranking system for evaluating how hot a girl is. This has got to be the closest thing we have to a universal system for the evaluation and degradation of the female gender, but despite its ubiquity it has some serious flaws. I therefore taken it upon myself to establish what shall be, after an appropriate time frame for feedback and discussion amongst my distinguished colleagues (i.e. dudes I know), the new standard for the assignment of one to ten numbers to all of the women of the world.

As an initial matter I think that it is important to point out the major weaknesses in the current system. That is, that what is a 7 to one guy is a 5 to another, what is a 9 to one dude is a 6.5 to someone else. Here I am not talking about inevitable differences in tastes and preferences (for example, my bizarre attraction to freckles) that lead people to rate the attractiveness of people differently, but rather the failure of the ranking system itself to establish a consistent method for number assignment. I think that failure can be fairly attributed to three different issues: (i) our underlying conception of the scale itself, (ii) the population which actually makes up the scale, and (iii) those attributes that can be appropriately considered when making a number assignment.

First, we have different conceptions of the makeup of the scale. Does it represent a bell curve, with all of the women of the world regularly distributed? Or alternatively, is it purely a substitute for what percentile of the population the person happens to fall into?

Second, who makes up the population that the girl is ranked against? Is it simply the entire female population of the country/world? Is it a local standard? What about old ladies and children? Wouldn’t including these people artificially inflate the numbers of the skanks to which we apply the system? Is this in fact a good thing, so that we might be less embarrassed when we tell “that story” about the time we were in a bit of a slump and drank all that jager/tequila/Irish car bombs, etc.

Third and finally, is it in fact appropriate to consider non physical attributes when making a number determination. I don’t think anyone would deny that certain non-physical characteristics can go a long way towards making someone more attractive: a sexy accent, a great laugh, an original sense of humor, a Victoria’s Secret Angel Halloween costume. All of these things can make a girl more attractive, but is it better for the system to make the number award in the metaphorical vacuum, only considering a person’s concrete and tangible features?

In order for the scale to be useful, then we must all have the same understanding of what constitutes an appropriate score in every case. After considering the current application of the system, and what would be the most efficient and economical method for its usage, I feel that the following is the best resolution to the current problems with the scale. I will address each issue individually, in each case advancing my reasons for the final decision.

First, the scale itself must be considered as a representation of a bell curve. To look at it otherwise would result in the award of far too many very high and very low numbers. Average should be a five, and therefore most girls should receive fours, fives, and sixes. I think there are far too many sevens and above being awarded currently. We must not allow grade inflation to creep into our skank rating systems. The business of objectification and debasement of women must remain pure. Note that as a result of using a regular distribution concept, tens should only be awarded to statistical outliers, truly outrageous female specimens.

Second, I think to maximize our system’s utility the population considered must be universal. A seven should be a seven whether you are in Boston, New York or Miami, if this results in there being nothing but threes in New Jersey, then too damn bad. Fuck New Jersey. I also think that the system should take into account only women of certain ages. For purposes of me not being arrested, let’s call that age range 18- 45. Any older or younger and you are outside the scope of the system’s applicability. From now on, any assignment of a one to ten number to a female outside of this range must be qualified with a “for her age” disclaimer.

Third, non-physical characteristics must not be considered when making a number assignment. If your homely girlfriend is funny, rich, and has a sweet Australian accent, then you can just explain that shit after you finish admitting that she is a four. Suck it up. Introducing more subjectivity into the scale can only weaken it’s usefulness for communicating hotnessness and cheapening women. So from this point forward, no docking points on evil bitches, and no charity points for cool chicks. It’s a pure meritocracy… a hotocracy, if you will. Footnotes and asterisks are fine, but no fudging the numbers.

There you have it folks. Wow, that turned awkwardly long and serious.