Max's Post:
Before I proceed and take a whack at this age old question, I'd like to point out how impressive it is that Austin Wong.... Austin fucking Wong... has been cited here as a credible, though apparently misguided, source on rating the opposite sex. I mean... how do we even determine the "opposite" sex for a being - nay, a stick bug - a smooth-patch-where-my-manhood-should-be Asian man lesbian like Austin who is, admittedly, sex-less? A tough question indeed. But this is not my concern at the moment. We have bigger fish, with bigger genitals than Austin, to fry.
Ahem...
Ladies and Gentlemen (and Austin), you've just witnessed my brother doing what he does best: arranging numbers and jargon prettily on a platter, then hurling that platter at your face... then waiting for you to say "thank you."
OK, maybe that's not completely fair. Zak has proven so far that he can surprise even his most critical reader (ie. Me). I was quite nonplussed after reading Zak's response to "Blogged Down?". Appalled, yes, but nonplussed just the same. Only an intellectual bishop-flogger like Zak can reference Nobel Laureate Saul Bellow AND... ahem... Julie and Julia in the same paragraph and mosey confidently on as if nothing just happened, as if no one heard the lazy flop of Saul Bellow turning over in his grave.
All jokes aside, Zak makes some compelling points. I can appreciate that numbers, equations, and binary systems are a quite useful, and classical, means to an end regarding this topic, and I can wholeheartedly admit that they are not my strong suit. Shit son, I majored in Russian Literature. I'm not a math guy.
Oh, by the way, I resent the implication that Humanities/Art losers like myself are walking, financially unsustainable clichés and, thus, have lesser chances of enticing 1,1,3s to our bed/cardboard box. Yes, I have two degrees in Russian Literature - No, I do not have a job – and Yes, I'm basically a waste of space, but you are completely discounting the “Charm Factor”'s ability to counteract the “Sustainability Factor.” In order for the Sexual Currency system to be viable, I feel like the factors comprising the “Personal Currency” variable shouldn't be allowed to operate independently but should, instead, be represented in correlation curves to, perhaps, come up with an optimal number based on the 3 sub-variables. For instance, as I just pointed out, there is an inverse correlation between charm and sustainability; the more charming a humanities bum like myself can be, the less weight his wallet needs to carry, and visa versa.
But, as our commentator already pointed out, this system is complicated enough. So I'll try to come up with something a little more comprehensive and a little less tedious.
Though the parameters of these rating systems are somewhat vague, I think I'm safe in assuming that they're all ultimately based on determining how plausible one's chances are of... uh, what do the kids say nowadays?... gettin the nookie? We're not just establishing ratings for ratings' sake. Correct? I'll assume so.
Right. Here we go.
A fundamental flaw I find embedded in all of these systems is the dominant aspect, which is: the outward projection of want. The smug look on Austin's face when he imposes his 4 point scale on the girl sitting across the way is a perfect representation of this. The reason these systems are all superfluous is that they are all superficially attached to the idea that the judgment is reserved, first and foremost, for the person across from you and not, in fact, for you.
This can never work.
I'm not going to play the economic logic game, but I will throw Zak a quick bone. You ready? OK, here it is...
Sex is NOT a buyer's market.
Zak suggests, with morbid generosity, that perhaps 50% of the population is worth putting on the “attractiveness scale.” I don't know what streets you walk down, but the population I see daily is full of greasy, fat, gangling, lagoon creatures, myself included. In the Sexual Pie Chart we fall under the huge slice labeled “beggars,” not the tiny sliver of “choosers.” That's point number 1. Point number 2, which is more important, applies to the pockmarked goblins comprising the bulk of the general population (I'd say at least 70%) and 25 of the remaining 30% left over. For my other humanities brethren out there, this means we're talking about something that includes 95% of the population.
Point number 2 is self consciousness.
We, the 95 out of a hundred, are a big, sweaty bunch of jittery-eyed, self-esteemless deadbeats. And I think we know this. Are we REALLY strutting around, gaging the the physical points of the people around us, or are we just trying to convince ourselves that this is the case? I know I referenced him in my last post and I promise I'm not going to turn into one of those pretentious Wallace worshipers, but the guy is so damn quotable and one of his most classic quotes works well here:
"You'll worry less about what other people think about you when you realize how seldom they do."
We can claim that we're a bass-bumping, martini-sipping, steamy club full of potential one-night-standers sizing up each other with coy looks, but let's slink into our corner, put on our night vision goggles and observe the reality of the situation; an uncomfortable sauna filled with perspiration fumes, oversexed, we're-having-the-greatest-night-of-our-lives music, and arm-rubbing club goers, worrying only about what other people are thinking of them.
So, is anyone actually thinking of someone other than themselves? Of course. But we need to put it into perspective here, this situation – the REAL situation – is founded not on a system of outward projection of want, but an inward reflection of doubt. We are not walking around a plasma TV gallery, looking for one that suits us. We are the TVs on display, trying to entice others to consider us, talk to us.... or just notice us. And trust me, and Mr. Wallace, when I say: no one is thinking about you more than you are.
Zak does address this in the Sexual Currency scale, referring to it as a kind of “spending within one's means.” We realize our own potential, or lack thereof, and choose our targets accordingly. In this respect, Zak and I are not in disagreement.
But what's my “system” of choosing? How does one person “rate” another based on their own self-doubt and not their outward projection of want? Again, I'm not bothering with numbers here because I find them superfluous. Looking again at Zak's scale, the only variable I see that's of any primary importance is Y = would they sleep with you? Remember, this is not a buyer's market. Remember, you are the TV.
So, when determining whether or not a person would actually sleep with you, you have to operate by what I call the “club meter.” We've all been to clubs, and we've all hated it. I maintain that this is the common case. But here is my secondary clause: this is the common case when sex is an initiative. If you're going to a club JUST to dance, or JUST to get shit faced, they can be quite enjoyable. But if sex, or the thought of sex, is playing any role whatsoever in your club night, then you will always have this sick feeling of disgust and disappointment sitting in your stomach. Why? The “club meter.” Want to know the “club meter?” Here it is (and, by the way, this is the only real number-based thing I'm going to include):
For all the women in a club: 98% of the men present are disgusting creeps/perverts with whom you'll dance for 2 seconds (if they're lucky) before mouthing the words “help me” to your friends.
For all the men in a club: 98% of the women present are potential sex partners.
Now, if you can find a way to operate effectively within those percentages, then congratulations, you've cracked the code. I've already yacked on long enough, to no real avail, so I'll just reaffirm my main premise. Determining potential hook-ups is a process that can only be effective when your ultimate criteria are a) how many of your unattractive qualities you'll be able to hide before getting to bed and/or b) how many of your unattractive qualities will they be able to overlook. After deciding these two points, then you can start to work outward. For instance: if you have a lot of unattractive qualities, then someone who is willing to overlook those will, most likely, have a lot themselves. We are drawn together by mutual degrees of self consciousness and loathing.
Finally, we want to get with people in order to dump some self-esteem back into our buckets. We want our sexual conquests to somehow reflect well on ourselves. This is why we parade proudly the photos of hot women we've hooked up with and deny the desperate measures we took in more desperate times.
It's all a a bit twisted and self-obsessed, really. Keep that in mind and you'll do alright.
Happy hunting.
No comments:
Post a Comment