Girl no longer hot enough to jump queue, get her essays done by someone else

pic:impathilm
Pichost.me

Today was a bad day for 23-year-old part-time waitress and student Jessica Heiders, after the Court of Public Opinion ruled in favour of Men Everywhere’s claim that the defendant, Heiders, was “not really all that hot any more” and no longer “good looking enough” to warrant the continued acts of desperate males stooping to social lows in an attempt to escape the friendzone and get with her.

Though Heiders used to be hot enough to get away with anything (like many other reported women) the Counsel for the Prosecution argued that she was no longer considered by “a lot of guys we know” as “actually all that bangable anymore” and so no longer qualified for her various I’d-Tap-That privileges.

“We live in a society of constantly shifting agreements of which women met the strict criteria of our white, idealised notions of beauty,” said lead prosecutor Ayam de Villes-Zadvokat. “There are only so many girls we can let pretend we’re good enough friends for them to jump the queue at Friars or any nightclub, only for us to be dropped within seconds for someone else who happens to be closer to the douche bouncer and his prized entrance.”

De Villes-Zadvokat went on to add that “there was really only so much extra homework we can do for other people in hopes of us getting in there”.

Many men have agreed.

“It’s been months now of me listening to her blathering-ons, opening the door for her, being polite and kind and complimentary, and just generally being really nice to her,” said 23-year-old fellow French student who sometimes does her translation assignments Charl Louw, “and still she hasn’t slept with me. I’m beginning to think she’s taking advantage of my honest, sincere friendship.”

Now after months of trial hearings and scathing cross-examination, the Court ruled that men should no longer do her Politics assignments or be understanding or sympathetic when she’s really just being an irrational bitch to you.

“The evidence speaks for itself,” said Justice Jimmy Haders, pointing out Louw’s Formula of Attractivenes. “If we look at the objective science, she just isn’t worth it anymore.”

He continued.

“I know a lot of you used to be okay with her droning on about her tedious and empty life of meaningless and ultimately irrelevant problems with her drug-addict father and depressed mother because you totally want to hit that, but this is no longer acceptable. She doesn’t meet the basic subminimums for this sort of preferential special treatment.”

The controversial precedent for Men vs Heiders, 2014 has now been set and the Court’s decision may have far reaching implications for women and men everywhere.

“Every day, thousands of men around the world treat certain women with more patience and kindness than their lesser, inferior, lower-than-a-low-seven counterparts,” he said. “No longer. Now the world has become a slightly more equal place.”

Heiders, however, has since lodged an appeal with the Supreme Court, but inside sources say her application has little chance of success.

“The judge in charge of submissions is really busy with a whole bunch of other legal matters,” they said, asking not to be named because they were pretty much making all this up as they went along. “Besides, there’s this totally smoking babe in the Courtroom - Chelsea, god, bro, you should see her, you’d die - and she asked him to fill in a little bit of paperwork for her if he wasn’t too busy, nothing too serious, just a couple of full legal applications in triplicate. And so he’ll be busy with that.”

Heiders, however, remains heartbroken at the decision.

“This is terrible!” she wept in bitter and impotent rage. “However will I get by without hundreds of spineless men whose lack of talent, charm, charisma or real sexual attraction forces them to try get into my pants with meaningless acts that anyone can do? Without these guys, who assume that doing said acts automatically requires me to sleep with them, however will I cope?”

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."