When Rating the Opposite Sex, Consider Your Currency - Zak

I had a conversation a few weeks ago with my best friend Austin while we were in London. Sitting outside at a pub and throwing back some (really bad) English beer, a girl sits down at a table opposite ours, catching Austin's eye. He looks over, gives me a smug little smile and says, "she's a one," before finishing off his beer. Sure, if you're a guy, you've heard it a thousand times in various forms - the women rating scale. From the basic 1-10 scale to the more sophisticated 3-part binary rating system, every guy seems to have some way to rate women in his back pocket. Presumably women have a similar way to rate men but all I've ever heard is either, "he's hot," "he's cute," or "oh I would never date him." Anyway as Austin left to grab us another round I sat and thought, what is the right way to rate the opposite sex? I determined that the only effective way to answer this question is to use an economic approach. But before we get to the right way, let's look at the flaws of some of the most common rating systems. 

The "he's cute," "he's hot," "I would never date him" Scale:
Do I have to explain or are we smart enough to move on? Great!

The 1-10 Scale:
This is the most amateur rating scale there is. It's lazy and gives a fake authority to folks who don't deserve it. People who use the 1-10 are like that annoying, red-haired, pimply, kid in your high school honors English class who didn't belong there but had an inventory of sweeping statements (most likely borrowed from a dictionary of quotes) and used them to describe the "meaning" of every book you read. What's more is that the 1-10 scale is highly impractical. You most likely have never seen a 10 or a 1, they're more theoretical. It's also extremely difficult to explain the difference between each rating. What makes someone an 8 vs. a 7? Who knows. Undoubtedly the only way to tease out these differences would be to dig deep into very personal details (like oh she'd be an 8 but her nose is a little too pointy or he'd be a six if it wasn't for his chin) which effectively takes out all standardization from the scale, rendering it ineffective. There are several other flaws to this scale but there's no need to list them out as we've already demonstrated why it's bullshit. Instead, let's move on.

The 4 Point Scale:
This is the rating scale Austin used that day at the pub. Essentially it assigns 1 point for meeting each of the following criteria: cute now, hot now, cute in the future, hot in the future - the highest rating being a 4. While this rating makes it easier to distinguish between ratings (the difference between a 1 and a 2 is somewhat clear), it also assumes that there is absolutely no difference between 0's. Think about that for a second then ask yourself what percentage of the population you would consider cute or hot. Let's be kind and say it's 50%. That means that the 4 point scale assumes that there's no difference in attractiveness between the remaining 50%, the 0's. A little odd right? I mean, I wouldn't consider either of these two cute/hot but you can't tell me there's no difference between Queen Latifah and the chick from Precious. What's more is that there's really no way to get a 4. In reality the highest rating is 2 + p(cute in the future) + r(hot in the future), where p and r are the probabilities that a good looking person today will be good looking tomorrow. And I also have to imagine that the 4 point rating has to have some sort of age limit. If you dig the cougars and you're out on the hunt for 40+ year old women, do you really care what they look like when they're 90? Bottom line, I love you Austin but the rating scale is elementary.

The 3-Part Binary Scale:
A little more credit is owed to this rating scale but it still falls a bit short. The 3-part binary scale assigns a score of: x.y.z and works like this. X is a yes or no question - would you sleep with the person (1 = yes, 0 = no). Y is a 1-10 rating of the body and Z is a 1-10 rating of the face. I like the 3 parameters of this scale; however, the same problem arises with the 1-10 ratings as the lazy 1-10 scale we talked about earlier. But let's forget about that, let's say we cram the 1-10 to a 1-5 scale instead, does that fix things? Not quite. The 3-part binary scale is like watching Titanic at the IMAX. You're kind of swept up in its epic nature, you follow the rest of the crowd and say it's amazing, flawless, the best movie of the decade and then you rent it later, watch it on your 36'' TV and realize that it's cheesy, poorly acted and that you really only cared about 2 scenes: Kate getting naked and the band continuing to play as the ship went down. After a second look, the problem with the 3-part binary scale is obvious - the "would you do him/her" question isn't sufficient enough to make this a practical, workable rating. Why? Remember that annoying, red-haired, pimply kid from high school - because of people like that. Sure, he might answer yes to the "would you do her" question 100% of the time but unfortunately that doesn't give him anything more than a larger inventory of faces to think about in the shower. The problem for our pimply friend is that it doesn't matter who he would sleep with because nobody wants to sleep with him. Which brings us to...

The Sexual Currency Scale:
The sexual currency scale picks up where the 3-part binary falls short. Consider for a second buying a TV. When you walk into the electronics store what's the first thing you do? You go directly to the 80'' LED, 3D TV and think "I want that one." Then, once the fantasy is over, you remember that you don't have five grand to spend on a TV and you walk away with a 42'' plasma. The sexual currency scale uses the same simple economic concepts, weighing what you want vs. what you can afford. It follows the same scoring concept as the 3-part binary, the x.y.z but with different criteria. X is the same yes or no question - would you sleep with the person (1 = yes, 0 = no). Y is the more important question - would they sleep with you (1 = yes, 0 = no). Finally Z is how much of your personal currency would you have to spend in order to sleep with that person - 1 point each for: looks, personality (are you charming, funny, etc) and sustainability (wealth, viable career path) for a max of 3 points. Let's dig deeper. The first question is obvious - would you sleep with him/her. We'll ignore all rating of physical features because, let's face it, physical features are only important insofar as to determine whether or not you want to sleep with the person. But then we get practical. The question of whether or not that person is likely to sleep with you is the same as asking "can I afford this TV?" If the answer is NO, then forget about it and move on. Lastly, figuring out what it would take for that person to sleep with you is like figuring out how much you need to spend to get what you want. Are you a male bimbo who can get by on your looks only? If yes, then a 1.1.1 is like your budget friendly male/female. They are good looking enough to sleep with, they'd sleep with you and it will take minimal effort to get them into bed. Great! But you don't want to settle so you go for more. A 1.1.2 is a little more "expensive" in terms of effort. Your looks get you in the door but you better be a charming mother f-er to get them into bed. That's all fine and good but at some point, if you want to find the best of the best, you've got to prove some sort of sustainability. You can be a charming starving artist but at some point you've got to prove you've got some viable career as a writer or musician right? So you go for the 1.1.3 - the best man or woman you're going to get with the sexual currency, the "budget" you possess.

The bottom line - sure we'd all like to go for 10's or 4's or 1.10.10's but unfortunately we all operate within a band of overall attractiveness. No matter how much you pray for it, no matter how charming you are, you aren't sleeping with J-Lo. Why? Because she's out of your league buddy so don't even bother scoring her because it doesn't matter. My advice, take your ass to match.com and search for a 1.1.3.