Academics to sort out /10 rating system

The popular system of rating members of the opposite sex out of ten is to undergo much academic scrutiny after the announcement of plans by Rhodes University to begin a Theory of Physical Attractiveness course.

According to the first Head of the newly formed Department of I Would Tap That, Sha Louw, this is the first time that a critical eye is being turned to the much-loved base-ten system.

“A lot of the debate right now just deals with whether or not such a system is sexist or shallow,” said Louw. “But before we can even think of that stuff, we need to see if it’s actually  right. What if we’re calling chicks an 8.2 when we’re actually going about it all wrong? What if they’re really just a 6.1?”

Many professors at the University are pleased by the decision, calling it a massive step forward in rating how hot chicks are.

“We’re glad this course is being put forward," said Chair of Women’s Studies Khoze Mopolitan. "We’re all for gender equality, and so a rating system that subjects both men and women to the same equally  oppressive system of grossly exaggerated expectations is a massive step forward in transforming so many hurtful gender-biased societal practices.” 

According to Louw, rating other human beings on a scale of attractiveness from a general “I would rather cut off my own legs with a rock than go near him/her” to “I would cut off my own legs with a rock in exchange for ten minutes with him/her” is a tradition that stretches back in time to the caveman era.

“We have recently unearthed evidence in caves thought to belong to our early pre-hominid ancestors,” said an excited Louw. “Cave paintings we found have shown that even our apelike ancestors had a basic rating system for picking partners.”

Newly unearthed cave paintings have shone light on how our ancestors used to rate okes.
Pick (modified): Jeannine Fletcher, Flickr.

However, these early humans use to choose based on biggest cave or food source or other such pro-survival criteria - a rating system that does not translate to the modern age.

“A few hundred thousand years later is where is really gets technical. The Romans, for example, never had a number for zero, so we can’t really trust any Roman-based numeracy systems to accurately portray someone’s bangableness,” said Louw. “On the other hand, the Egyptians used a strange base-14 system that missed out a few middle ratings, going from 1 to 7, and then 13 to 20.”

Our base-ten system, Louw says, has too many flaws to be a trustworthy system of hotness ranking.

“The problem with our system is that it theoretically starts at zero, but in practice never goes below 5. It’s pretty much a foregone conclusion that we wouldn’t bang anything below a 6, so why do we even have low numbers?” he said.

The system is also entirely unobjective, and is easily influenced or outright broken by alcohol, drugs, or long periods of not seeing truly high-ranking examples of the opposite sex.

“If I go on a sports training camp in the middle of nowhere for three weeks and come back to campus, I’m gonna think that every girl is a 18.6 out of 10,” he said. “God help me if I add a CrackBomb to the equation.”

Many guys who have never actually talked to a real girl before new theorists have been quick to offer alternative rating systems, but the business of picking one is extremely difficult. One theory that gained some momentum was the dual-rating system proposed by Sexiness lecturer at Wits University’s Department of Hotness Ray Tinchicks. Tinchicks proposed a preliminary rating out of one to determine whether or not “you would”, and then further rating out of five to allow for a nuanced ranking system.

Louw, however, remains unconvinced by all offered systems.

“Some have offered a percentage system, but that’s far too complicated,” he said. “And some choose to supplement the current system with a decimal subsystem to allow for refined ranking and nuances, but these are too hard to reliably assign accordingly.

Louw has since come up with his own rating system that accounts for smokiness of the room, distance from the person and even blood alcohol level.

Louw hopes that his rating system will do away with older, incorrect systems.

Many other theorists, however, have attacked this system, saying that it’s “imprecise and too prone to variable influence”. “I give his ranking system a 6.5723 out of 15.7,” said Associate Professor of Sexiness Studies Kreeh Pinhard. In spite of this, Louw remains unfazed.

“Other noted academics in my field, such as Vinny D, Mike The Situation and The Guys In Friars, have criticised my initial suggestions, but that’s the whole point of this course, isn’t it? We won’t just stumble on a perfect system right away. It's going to take a lot of consideration, careful thought and attention, and deep philosophising before we can all agree on how hard, exactly, we'd hit that."