Today’s posting is an unadulterated guest submission. While this was drafted a number of years ago, the idealistic, romantic pillars on which it rests remain intact. Please remember that while looks are important, your primary concern is to find a gal who is one part rapacious capitalist, two parts lets you shit with the door open. Enjoy:
I know you are all familiar with the standard scale that has been devised over many hours over the last spring semester, and since I am supposed to be researching landlord-tenant liability laws, I will not spend much time rehashing what we all know. Bro One and Bro Two, this was the scale we discussed at Restaurant One and Bro Three, you are the co-founder of this marvelous creation.
But to recap, the scale is based less on one person’s opinion, and more on the general populace’s thoughts if it were to become known you bedded an upstanding young woman. For instance, if Marisa Miller (a 1) walked out of your bedroom Saturday morning and one hundred (100) guys were loitering in your living room (ignore the logistics of such a scenario) to give a thumbs up/thumbs down on whether they would nail this broad, everyone would thumbs up. Even the queers. You would be carried out of the apartment (again, ignorant logistics) on their shoulders and toted as a hero for generations to come. The point being: such creatures are few and far between and not to be overvalued.
Now if Rosie O’Donnell (a 4) were to thunderously amble her way, somehow, between your bedroom doorway, one hundred (100) guys, (or most of I hope) would laugh you into a shameless suicide, something like an auto-erotic asphyxiation with a belt around your neck giving the one-hand clap to some strange shit on the bowels of spankwire.com; for surely it would be less embarrassing for your family to find you this way than for them to know you bedded such a beast. The girl would be chased for your apartment with pitchforks and burning stakes (a la Frankenstein), and you an embarrassed man. The point being: these disgraceful miscreations are out there, and with a higher frequency than our angelic 1’s. This is Bro One/Bro Four territory, and not for the faint of heart (i.e. the rest of respectful gentlemen.)
The decisive issue of the theory lies in the middle two parts. Just like the notorious “1-10” scale, the easy parts are the outliers, where the true debate exists in the more commonplace middle regions where most ladies fall. I believe (and feel free to agree or disagree, but fuck you, I don’t give a shit since it’s my analysis) that the dividing point is not necessarily subjective or qualitative. It again goes to the reaction of the theoretical masses lingering in the living room; a 2 would get a hearty cheer. Lots of “she’s cute” and “good for you,” these girls are very pretty and no one would be ashamed to have laid with them for a fortnight (in the Biblical sense). 3’s are the standard. Average. Middle of the road. No one is rejoicing, but expect high fives for getting that dick wet. Also nothing to be entirely ashamed about, but also nothing to brag about, exception being she does some crazy shit. The exceptions are for you to determine since I do not have the time, energy or imagination to begin to delve in what would be cause for gloating.
Each of us desired to add a separate tweak to the system. A plus/minus to the 2 and 3 range for further clarification of the attractiveness/ warthog-ishness of a filthy lass. The issue brings us back to the problem with the 1-10, or the subjective nature of getting too detailed. I can honestly concur that I do not have a valid answer to this. Also, I have to poop so I am going to try and wrap this up.
In class today, I gave a brief once through of the girls in my Real Property class. I choose this class for numerous reasons: it’s in the afternoon so I am fully awake, last class so I am pretty bored, it’s a class I do not need to really pay full attention for, etc. Anyway, our class has twenty-nine (29) girls. The more astute of you (everyone but Bro Two) will notice the data proved only lists twenty-seven (27) girls. This is because of a strange coincidence I believe has never been discussed: older women. In this case, both women have children in middle school and high school and thus do not aptly fit into any category listed. Instead they fall into the forgotten “binary system” (you either would – 1 or would not – 0). MILFs and non-MILFs if you will. If you are really that interested, one I would, one I would not, but it is a non-factor to our discussion.
I tried my hardest to be fully objective. I tried my hardest to ignore my own biases and view the world tabula rasa (blank slate for my non-Latin cognizant friends). Asians, redheads, curvier girls, Indians (dot, not feather), Southern belles and exceptionally petite girls all got a third person view, or what I would think if one of my friends buried a nut in them. The one 1 was a redhead. You all know my predilection for those of this particular auburn tone, but this girl is truly exceptional. She could go a 2 (2+ on the other scale) but to bolster my defense, she was a cheerleader for the Columbus Bluejackets, and every guy in our class agrees she is one of a kind. The 4’s… well, they are not pretty, in both the figurative and literal sense.
Another source of debate has been the shape of the scheme. The 1-10 has a linear, left-to-right scale. Here, we have theorized on a pyramid, diamond and my personal leaning, the upside-down Superman logo. If you look at the standard scale (table shown below), you can clearly see the pinnacle, a broad middle ground, and a narrower bottom that remains wider (note the irony) than the top spot. But still not quite a diamond or upside-down Superman logo. Another topic that deserves discussion and debate, this time sincere unlike the previous time I solicited others opinions.
Here now are the adjusted numbers. Again, I tried my best to be void of any bias. These charts would be better if I remembered how to use excel, or gave enough of a shit to figure out how to add percentages and shit but you get the idea you pricks.
Added bonus theories!
Bro One, Bro Two and I talked about how, on the 1-10 scale or this scale, a girl can improve with a genuine personality, but does not stand to lose any points if she happens to be a vapid twat. For example, Paris Hilton is probably a 7 or 8, a 2 on the standard, but despite being an insufferable dick-infested cockholster, she can’t be moved downward. If she had the personality of say, a cool aunt or friend’s mom, she could only stand to move upward. I would be interested to see if anyone has any exceptions to this theory.
Another interesting thought that came up over a rousing lunch of bullshit is a confinement factor. A buddy of mine pointed out that, in law school, most particularly finals, we become so isolated from the standard world and tightly clustered with the same faces, with the addition of tensions, pressures, hormones and the pressing need to just fuck anything, a lesser girl can suddenly be far more appealing than she normally would be in the bounds of traditional life. For example, a plain 3 on the standard scale can easily slide to a solid 2 after spending eight hours a day for two weeks as your only female interaction. Think of it as Stockholm Syndrome for your boner.
I appreciate your devotion to reading my incoherent ramblings and hope you enjoyed it as much as I enjoyed pooping while writing it. Obviously, this is closed circle document and would be best suited to not be spread around too much outside you guys. But I would also like to see what you guys can chart for the competing theories as well: Bro One, you could take a quick survey of a class, or Bro Two could take a running count one night at the bar, and Bro Three can measure his two secretaries and his director’s fat wives. Remember, the point is not what YOU necessarily think, but what the average guy would think if his buddy was porking her. I suggest taking both the standard and the +/- stats for official comparisons. Remember – “You can’t start a fire without a spark, this guns for hire, even if we’re just dancing in the dark,” the great philosopher-ruler, Bruce Springsteen.