Rating Girls In Bars, by Matt Shirley

Humans have been rating the attractiveness of members of the opposite sex for millions of years.  That sentence was a lie.  Only guys rate the opposite sex. Apparently, girls don’t like fun.  But throughout these millions of years, numerous ways of rating females have entered the scene, with varied degrees of success.

The traditional way to rate girls is based on the standard 0-10 scale, where a 10 is smoking hot, and a 0 is ass ugly.  A similar rating system has been used in unsuccessful mediums like diving, figure skating, and terrible celebrity dance competitions.  Let’s say, for the sake of this example, that I have a friend named Lee.  Lee and I walk into a bar and after some contention, Lee decides that the girl we have labeled as Rhonda, is a 7.

So Rhonda’s a 7.  What the hell does that mean?

By itself, it doesn’t mean much, which brings forth the flaw of this system.  I know that Lee thinks Rhonda’s a 7, but without a comparison, this number is arbitrary and unhelpful.  For all I know, every girl in the place under 300 pounds in weight is a 7 to Lee.

Now what?

We could go through the entire bar and rate everyone in there, which would give me a fair sample size and thus an idea for Lee’s tastes.  But even then, all I find out is that Lee likes Rhonda twice as much as Patricia but thinks Patricia is slightly prettier than Bette. And so on. A more helpful tack would be to set a Girl Beauty Average.  So we think for a bit, take a look around the bar for a sample, and settle on our averages.  Lee thinks the average is 5.  I think the average is 2.3.  I’ll explain why I am right and why he is an idiot in the following dialogue:

“But 0 + 10 = 10.  And 10/2 = 5,” Lee says confidently.

“Those calculations are impressive,” I reply, “but for every five 0’s, there are not five 10’s.  A more likely equation shows that for every five hundred 0’s, there are only five 10’s.”

“Ohhh,” Lee says, as he smacks himself in the forehead. “I see now.  You are a genius, let me buy you a beer.”

So basically Lee and I have come to the conclusion that to us, the world is bottom-weighted when it comes to female beauty.  Which, while sad, can hardly be disputed.     Of course, it’s possible that a person or a pair of persons could arrive at an average through similar means of something like, say, 5.5.  But then these persons would best be characterized as ‘harmfully desperate’ or ‘idealistic morons’ or ‘blind people’.

But even after establishing an average, all we really learn is that Rhonda is significantly above-average, the 34 year old bartender has scraped past the top of the bell curve, and the one-eyed sea-beast playing Big Buck Hunter is not going to be our friend after we tell her her rating.  What we need is some consequences.  If we rate a girl as a _____, it means that we would be willing to do _________ to her.

And yes, we will be filling in these blanks.  Shameful I know.

The first and most primal way of actually deriving meaning from one’s rankings is the Binary System.  It’s quite simple:

Regarding copulation: 1 means yes, 0 means no.

This system works for many a guy who find establishing a range in female beauty to be unnecessary and overcomplicated—either they are going to 1 her or ignore her completely.  This in itself is an oversimplification, however.  All girls start as either a 1 or a 0, but these ratings can meander in the opposite direction as the night progresses, depending on the circumstances. Penelope shows off some wicked shuffleboard skills, suddenly she’s a 1.  Dan approaches Andrea with some witty banter but Andrea shuts Dan down with a “talk to my ugly friend” technique.  Dan’s rating of Andrea abruptly drops a full point.  Frank is getting drunk as shit, suddenly everyone’s a 1.

As simplistic and Neanderthal-ic as this system is, it does have its merits.  Consider the following scenario:

A girl finds this list of number scrolled on a napkin at the neighborhood tavern:

0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

She might think this is programming for the circuitry of an oscillating fan, but in fact, it is a man’s rating for the first 22 American presidents in terms of who he would and would not bone.  Apparently this fellow had a thing for Grover Cleveland.

Tricky.

While the Binary System is completely awesome in almost every way, it doesn’t leave a lot of room for subtleties, especially situations in which the choice between intercourse and temporary celibacy is not so clear-cut.

Hello Tier System.

Think of the Tier System as the exponentially more bitchin’ ancestor of the two most significant contributions to human society by the Incan civilization: terraces and numbers.  As the Incans planted different crops—squash, potatoes, peanuts, quinoa—on the mountainous terraces, we will plant numbers and correspondingly degrading classifications on ours.

The bottommost tier is obviously going to hold the crops that we don’t really mind washing away in the bi-annual floods.  Crops like “fatties”, “uggos”, “lazy-eyes”, and “girls-who-look-like-Ronaldinho” all sit firmly planted in Tier 1. These are the girls we want nothing to do with.  It doesn’t matter how drunk we get, or how dark the bar is, we will never want to have sex with them.  Ever.  (Until we get old/desperate enough to bump them up a tier)

Tier 2 is a tickle more complicated.  Simply put, a girl on the second tier is pretty ugly, but under some conditions mating will still take place.  These conditions are as follows:

a)     Inebriation

b)    Minimal effort; specifically that the girl is already in the boy’s bed

c)     Non-disclosure

Only when all three of these conditions are met will the male in question consent to sexualizing the Tier 2 female.  If you’ve ever heard a guy say, “I would sex that girl but I’d have to be realllly drunk, she would have to be already naked in my bed, and I’d have to be sure no one would ever find out,” then he was speaking about a Tier 2 girl.    Tier 2 is where self esteem goes to die.

Tier 3 is no picnic on the psyche either.  While Tier 3 females are considered to be good enough to be pursued for conditionless intercourse (“Woo! Hey girls! Shots all around!”—imagine this in a ditzy, semi-skank voice), they are, unfortunately, not good enough to be categorized as ‘potential girlfriend material’ (“wah, wah, wah”—imagine a descending tone with those wahs). In other words, you don’t want a Tier 3 lady to be your girlfriend but you’d still like to see her nude.

Tier 4 is by far the most prestigious yet miniscule of all the tiers.  If we were creating a pie chart on deaths caused by STDs, Tier 4 would be the ‘killed by the clap’ slice. A Tier 4 girl is a girl we would like to get to know, to woo, to date, to talk to, and of course, to mate with.  Tier 4 is the ‘Fats, Oils, & Sweets’ portion of the Food Pyramid and the ‘Fats, Oils, & Sweets’ in this case are actually girls who have girlfriend potential.

While Tier 4 girls are as rare as insightful statements on The Jersey Shore, Tier 1 & 2 girls are more prevalent than frightened people at a Pakistani market.  And for this reason, it is important (and entertaining) to break these groups into rated subgroups.  We do this by using arguably the most demeaning of all the rating techniques: The Money System.  (2-10 players, ages 16 and up)

The Money System is best demonstrated through example:

Lee and I just finished a set of Irish Car Bombs and are looking to build our self-esteems by tearing down others.  We spot an unsightly young lady with curly red hair and big fat arms and to Lee, I pose a question: “How much would I have to pay you Lee, to have sex with that girl?”
At this point, the askee (as opposed to the asker) always reacts with a primary emotion of disgust, and then proceeds to overcompensate by extravagantly overinflating his answer.

Lee: “Oh come on man!  That girl’s hideous.”

Matt: “So how much.”

Lee: “That girl?  At least 2 million.”

It is my job now, to reason with Lee.

Matt: “You are such a goddamn liar.  If I gave you $10,000 in cash—in 100-dollar bills—right now, you’re telling me you wouldn’t get it done with her?  That’s a year’s worth of Kansas rent, earned in one night.”

Lee considers my offer and recognizes his earlier folly.

Lee: “You’re right.  I’d do it for 5k.”

Now we’re talking.  Let the games begin.

The Money System can be implemented on almost anyone—male or female—as long as those people are Binary System 0’s (read: ugly).  If two participants have similar standards (or lack there of), they can participate in a Money System auction.  A sort of Name That Tune for ugly girls.

For  example:

Lee: (re: the girl with the eye patch) “I would have sex with her for $6000.

Pedro: “I would have sex with her for $5000.”

Lee: (thinking for a moment) “4000.  American dollars.”

Pedro: “I would have sex with her for $1000.”
Lee: “Have sex with that girl!”

At this point the group would move on to a new girl, because obviously anyone standing around saying they’d have sex with 300 lb. eye-patched girls don’t have a thousand dollars.

While I would never condone any of these rating techniques, I do find it important to warn that if one does choose to embark on one of the more degrading rating systems described above, he needs to show his utmost discretion.  Remember, that sea beast you are rating has sea beast strength and if she catches wind of your shenanigans, she will probably commence taking out her battered ego on your face, neck, and ears.  Just like you’re the buck and she’s the hunter.

Related Posts