An easier hotness rating system

We all know various rating systems utilised to assess and help friends rank the beauty of women. Surely, many others existed throughout time. Three of the most recent qualifiers used comprise:

  • The golden scale of 1-10;
  • Tucker Max’s 5-star system;
  • An extended 1-30 score, broken into three (3) ten-count brackets, from fellow shitlord Patrice O’Neal (RIP);

The problem with these metrics lies within their lack of objective-subjectivity. Your HB8 and Buddyzilla’s HB8 differ, quite likely. For an easy test, view any of those “hotness compilation by number” images and see how long it takes to think or say, “No way! That chick looks like a 6 to me.”

The only number you assign matters. United Shitlords present an efficient method for arriving at your conclusion without so much thinking, guesswork, back-and-forth, and margin for error. Follow these simple steps:

  1. All women start at 10. We don’t put them on pedestals here. Keep reading.
  2. Any characteristic you judge unideal about her physicality causes her to lose a point. Some of these aspects could include (your fetishes, notwithstanding):
    • body odour;
    • chapped lips;
    • chipped nail polish;
    • dull eyes;
    • extended philtrum;
    • facial hair;
    • flat ass;
    • high rising terminal;
    • long jawline (see Megyn Kelly, Sasha Grey, etc);
    • narrow or wide pupillary distance;
    • overweight, even slightly;
    • piercings;
    • pixie, Skrillex, or any bob haircut, or dyed hair;
    • poor hygiene;
    • “problematic” glasses;
    • snaggly teeth;
    • speaking in the vocal fry register;
    • sweaty hands;
    • tattoos;
    • thick, caterpillar-like eyebrows;
  3. Keep subtracting points until you raise no further items of contention. Often, women fall between 5-7;

Make a mental note of your evaluation. Compare it against future outcomes. See how this method results in a more consistent and objective analysis of your subjectivity. Additionally, you avoid overvaluing women and mounting them on high horses.

While we admit this procedure as yet another fixed set of values, the importance hinges upon how you get to the end of the road rather than the destination itself. Contrasting it with the findings of other dudes becomes irrelevant. United Shitlords wish this process saves everyone time and reduces the frequency of petty arguments over the attractiveness of one bird versus another.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s