The Universal Scale of Attractiveness (USA)
These boys rank at a 2.3 and 2.4, respectively.
Theory time. The Universal Scale of Attractiveness (USA) was developed by yours truly while pursuing undergraduate studies about three years ago. It was created during a conversation with a friend who, at the time, was convinced that her crush was super hot. I brought her back down to reality with the aforementioned theory.
USA is not yet endorsed or approved by any substantial association, but I have the feeling that once I leak this info, it will spread like wildfire, and next thing you know, Oprah will be discussing Stedman's USA ranking with Dr. Phil.
The Universal Scale of Attractiveness is an "objective" scale on which every human being's physical attractiveness can be ranked. There are many different forms of the Scale - physical, intellectual, financial, and overall, but the most common use to date is the physical. These scales can be combined, and numbers can be crunched to achieve averages for each one of the elements, but generally, we use it to evaluate how hot someone is.
How do you rank people? Well, basically, let's start with the principle that a 10.0 on the overall scale pretty much does not exist. It's nearly impossible to find a 10.0 (everything is measured in a whole number by tenths - for the math challenged, it means a whole-number-point-something). I mean, this isn't f*cking Mary Lou Retton on a balance beam here, it's a scale of people. A ten is like, flawless. I think only two or three tens exist in the world today. And so far I have never encountered any of them. Brad Pitt, who most women consider to be one of the most attractive men in Hollywood, is still only a 9.7, which should say something. Conversely, a 1.0 (or less) is easier to come by, but still rare. The best way to describe a 1.0 was on a t-shirt I saw on Tshirthell.com. Forgive the crassness, but a one is someone you "wouldn't even f*ck for practice". Also, just so you know, rankings are pretty static, meaning that they rarely fluctuate. Certain things obviously give to fluctuation, like plastic surgery, or a good haircut, but really, it doesn't usually change anything dramatically.
Why would we use this? Well, for one, it explains lots of things. It explains why someone doesn't call you back (out of your personal Scale range, usually). It's also quite good at putting things in perspective (getting over your friends, who give your ex a 6.1, isn't that hard). It's also great for comparing (would you rather be with the 5.4, or the 7.7?) The scale is really a byproduct of the Ladder Theory, or so I like to think. Your goal, as a dating human being, is to continuously date, and possibly end up with, a person who ranks as high as possible on the scale. It's a fine balance between not lowballing yourself, yet keeping your expectations reasonable (i.e. if you, yourself, are a 4.5, you're really not going to do any better than a 6, and even a 6 will probably cheat on you or kick you around, because they probably know they're superior). If you really feel that you'll never top out any higher, MARRY THEM. Lock 'em in is what I say.
Personally, I have topped out at an 8.0 on the scale, but only once, about two years ago, and sadly, no one has come very close since. And I didn't date the guy, per se, it was more of a long-term fling. Getting over that, when it blew up, was pretty tough. The guy is now a friend, but irrespective of relationship status, he will always be an 8.0. Chris, one of my best friends who I openly acknowledge being in love with, is somewhere in the upper eights. It is just too bad that he is GUD (geographically undesirable, read: Cincinnati), or else we would be together and then I would easily top out my scale. Someday, maybe.
Angelina Jolie falls somewhere in the nines. Danny DeVito is a 2.9 (but he just barely breaks 3 on the overall scale, because he is rich and sort of funny). George W. Bush is a 6.4. My friend Kyle is squarely around 7, but his score increases a lot on the overall scale, because his personality enhances his attractiveness, and he's quite smart. Media Maguire is a 6.5, redeemable only by his smokin' abs. Jennifer Garner manages a 8.3, give or take. See? It's pretty simple.
If nothing else, the USA celebrates superficiality, and it gives us something to do when grocery shopping, taking the subway, or drinking with friends. It's a nice little theory, no?
Your assignment: keep the Scale in mind for a little bit. I dare you to try to find a 10.0. Report back to me if you ever find them, and if they are male. Shit, give the guy my number.
posted by KA @ 10:09 PM
3 Comments:
Karen, not to get all uppity on you, but you don't exactly say how to actually rank a person. What is the base score? Do you start at 5, and then add and subtract points? Or do you start at 10, and knock off points for things like big nostrils, poor fashion taste, etc. Furthermore, what constitutes attractiveness, and how can you establish universalality? I mean, theoretically, every person using the system should come up with an identical or nearly identical score.
Also, what sort of variables do you plan to use? Are they ordinal? Nominal? God forbid, interval? These are important questions. One might even say, shocking. Speaking of him... He had to be a 9! Too bad he plays for the other team. Does that factor into the USA as well?
Tim,
It's 9:30, and I'm running sort of late to go out, but I always try to be timely in my rebuttals, and the drinking and embarrassing behavior on my part can wait a little bit longer, so here goes:
The base score is a 5.0. Five is "average". Then, factoring in "attraction factors" (of which there are like a million for both men and women) - for guys this is like hair pattern (or, when older, if they even have any automatically adds at least a point), height (taller = better), and general desire to sleep with them. If they are taller with hair, add a couple of points. If you want to vomit when you see them, subtract a couple of points. You get the point.
Is it universal? Christ, we're still working on that. One step at a time here. I have scientists at my lab in Kuala Lumpur trying to figure it out. I do know that I have the final word in any judgment call, because it's my f*cking theory. So there.
Variables...would I be a loser if I said they were interval? Yes, I would. But there you have it.
And please refer to something when you are citing it. Who is a 9? God? I mean, I happen to know that you're talking about Dr. TC, my favorite just-to-the-left-of-straight professor from school who I had sex dreams about for two years, but no one else knows reading this knows that's who's "shockingly a 9". Although I guess now they do.
Hope this answers your questions.
Respectfully yours,
KA
P.S. I talked to LT this afternoon, and he is staying warm rocking the sweatpants and the Nikes in Akron.
Karen, I just thought I would say that I didn't want to reference "TC" specifically, because what if TC was reading? I'd be pretty embarassed if he found out what we thought. Or something.
Okay, I am gonna go be a loser and go to bed at 11 now ;)
Post a Comment
<< Home