Lick's Famous 5-Point Scale
I developed this new Female Rating System while in college, after finding the standard 10-Point Scale, and Beer Scale, to be inadequate for getting any real information on exactly how objectively attractive a woman is.
The reason these other scales don't work well is that there's very little actual meaning attached to any of the numbers. Really now, what's the difference between a 4 and a 6? Is a "5" merely average looking? And who the hell ever uses "3"? All you ever hear is something like 'Dude, she was at least an 8!' The other problem is that people's tastes are so wildly divergent that one guy's 6 is another's 8, and so forth.
While this is also a great system for discussing women with your buddies, the true practicality comes from Blind Setup situations, where you really want a good idea of what you're getting yourself into.
Think of this more as a Class based system, rather than a numerical scale. Without further ado:
Class 5 - HOT! No further explanation should really be necessary. True Class-5s are extremely rare. Think Sarah Michelle Gellar (Buffy), Eliza Dushku, Kirsten Dunst, etc.
Class 4 - Unqualified Attractive. All the explanation necessary is "She's cute." No major flaws or reasons to think of her as unattractive in any way. If you were walking past this girl, or saw her in a bar, she would definitely be worth checking out. Your buddies will be impressed with you for hooking up or being seen with this girl.
Class 3 - Qualified Attractive. The key description of this girl is that 'She's cute, but...' There is some obvious, but overall relatively minor, flaw that keeps her from being 'just cute'. Typically it's a either a little overweight, or rather plainlooking. Keep in mind, though that she is still 'cute'. A Class 3 usually rates a second glance when passing her on the street. There's great room for variety in the 3s. In general, your buddies would not make fun of you for hooking up with a Class 3, and you would not mind being seen in public with her.
Class 2 - Does Not Show Up On Radar. You're in the mall, or bar, or other crowded place. While you're scanning the hotties, this is the girl that doesn't even show up on your radar. You don't notice her at all. She is not attractive. You don't even think about giving her a second glance, because you don't even notice that she's there. This is the girl your buddies WILL make fun of you for hooking up with after a 6-pack and/or some tequila.
Class 1 - Hideous! She is both fat AND ugly. She shows up on radar only because after you see her, you have to avert your eyes and never look her way again. Hooking up with a girl like this almost always requires tequila, even after you've finished the 12-pack on your own. Your buddies will still make fun of you years later for hooking up with this girl.
Theoretically, there is also a Class Zero, but I can't even fathom the depths it would require. My best guess would be knowingly hooking up with a Class 1 who also has some sort of severe STD.
Acceptable Modifiers: Since further clarification is sometimes warranted, for the 3 and 4 classes, you can also add in a ".5", ".9", or a plus/minus (e.g, a 3+). [Note: there is no use for a "3.2" or anything other than .5/.9] These are to indicate that a particular woman is definitely far above the minimum requirements of her class, but just does not quite meet the requirements of the higher class.
Now go forth and spread the word*, and hopefully send me some readers.
*that word being "legs".
The reason these other scales don't work well is that there's very little actual meaning attached to any of the numbers. Really now, what's the difference between a 4 and a 6? Is a "5" merely average looking? And who the hell ever uses "3"? All you ever hear is something like 'Dude, she was at least an 8!' The other problem is that people's tastes are so wildly divergent that one guy's 6 is another's 8, and so forth.
While this is also a great system for discussing women with your buddies, the true practicality comes from Blind Setup situations, where you really want a good idea of what you're getting yourself into.
Think of this more as a Class based system, rather than a numerical scale. Without further ado:
Class 5 - HOT! No further explanation should really be necessary. True Class-5s are extremely rare. Think Sarah Michelle Gellar (Buffy), Eliza Dushku, Kirsten Dunst, etc.
Class 4 - Unqualified Attractive. All the explanation necessary is "She's cute." No major flaws or reasons to think of her as unattractive in any way. If you were walking past this girl, or saw her in a bar, she would definitely be worth checking out. Your buddies will be impressed with you for hooking up or being seen with this girl.
Class 3 - Qualified Attractive. The key description of this girl is that 'She's cute, but...' There is some obvious, but overall relatively minor, flaw that keeps her from being 'just cute'. Typically it's a either a little overweight, or rather plainlooking. Keep in mind, though that she is still 'cute'. A Class 3 usually rates a second glance when passing her on the street. There's great room for variety in the 3s. In general, your buddies would not make fun of you for hooking up with a Class 3, and you would not mind being seen in public with her.
Class 2 - Does Not Show Up On Radar. You're in the mall, or bar, or other crowded place. While you're scanning the hotties, this is the girl that doesn't even show up on your radar. You don't notice her at all. She is not attractive. You don't even think about giving her a second glance, because you don't even notice that she's there. This is the girl your buddies WILL make fun of you for hooking up with after a 6-pack and/or some tequila.
Class 1 - Hideous! She is both fat AND ugly. She shows up on radar only because after you see her, you have to avert your eyes and never look her way again. Hooking up with a girl like this almost always requires tequila, even after you've finished the 12-pack on your own. Your buddies will still make fun of you years later for hooking up with this girl.
Theoretically, there is also a Class Zero, but I can't even fathom the depths it would require. My best guess would be knowingly hooking up with a Class 1 who also has some sort of severe STD.
Acceptable Modifiers: Since further clarification is sometimes warranted, for the 3 and 4 classes, you can also add in a ".5", ".9", or a plus/minus (e.g, a 3+). [Note: there is no use for a "3.2" or anything other than .5/.9] These are to indicate that a particular woman is definitely far above the minimum requirements of her class, but just does not quite meet the requirements of the higher class.
Now go forth and spread the word*, and hopefully send me some readers.
*that word being "legs".
posted by Rev. Lick at 2:07 PM
5 Comments:
Wow, what an amazingly judgemental person you are!! Who ever said I thought I was a 5? I have absolutely no problems admitting I'm somewhere in the 3.5 range, and my dick size is average. I make up for those by being incredibly interesting and...skillful.
So let me ask YOU a question, Erica:
If your friends were setting you up on a blind date, you are saying you WOULD NOT ask "Is he cute?"
Of course you would.
Of course you're being judgemental ;). Rather than ask me in the first comment if I cared about anything more than looks, you started off by calling me shallow!
To answer your question, of course I have, on both counts. I'm not perfect, and don't expect anyone else to be, but I'm not going to date someone whom I do not find attractive. Waste of my time. Conversely, I'm not going to waste (much) effort on a hot/boring woman. There are plenty of personality traits that are deal-killers, you know. Last few girlfriends, let's see...I) 3.9 w/drinking problem, II) 4.5/too artsily-unstable, III) 4/boring.
So Erica, why is this such a sensitive topic for you?
can't read a book by it's coverBlonde alert! ;) I'd say reading the cover is a good way to find out if you're interested in sitting down with the whole book ;).
Seriously, you need to attribute this to one of those biological differences between men and women. Generally speaking, it is true that men place more emphasis on looks than do women. We're more visually stimulated than mentally stimulated. That's why men like to watch porn, and women like steamy romance novels. Admitting this is so is merely acknowledging reality, and is neither offensive, nor shallow. I just have a more efficient way of doing it ;).
I figured you would rate yourself a 5.Nonsense, that would undermine the integrity of the entire system! I've got a pic up, see for yourself. I'm secure enough that I don't need to delude myself.
Ding ding - are you two done slugging it out yet? ERICA, you most likely do not know the good Rev. very well or you would not be taking this shit the slightest bit seriously.
Post a Comment
<< Home