Hot or Not?

Last summer I sought to create a rating index which would help me objectively objectify women and assess their potential as a mate. Points were awarded as follows (100 point scale) - Hair (5), Body (15), Face (30), Eyes (20), Culture (9), Sense of Humor (4), Intelligence (9), Innocence (8). Needless to say, upon peer review many were critical of this model. Some excerpts follow below. I've omitted inside jokes. Warning: some of this is mental masturbation combined with too much time on our hands, but I hope you find it somewhat entertaining...
[Note: The original Excel spreadsheet is available via email request]

Jerry
Its interesting that "Face" and "eyes" are separate and yet combined they come to 50% of the total score. This would suggest that you'd consider dicking a knocked up dumb ass bald fat chick who had the hottest face/eye combo. If this is in fact the case, I could probably find you one on the internet. Also, you might want to add a "thin as a wafer" column.

Doc
I remember there was some discussion last June about how having separate categories for Face and Eyes was somewhat redundant; I briefly considered merging them into one quotient and then reducing their combined worth from 50% of the aggregate score to a more reasonable figure, but then decided I'd rather not manipulate the raw scores (those out of 100 for each category) provided by Blake. So instead I only lowered Face from 30% to 28% and Eyes from 20% to 14%.

Of course, I do agree that Blake's fondness for eye quality does suggest some nostalgic opinion of romance as well as some awareness for the enigmatic nature of female beauty, but I think this 20% figure is outdated and maybe unreasonable if we are really thinking about these girls (here, girl A to girl I) as potential soulmates or "blakemates," to conform to the lexicon.

In general, I should make clear that my statistical tweaking is not to indicate my tastes, but only to indicate my perception of what Blake's tastes actually are.

For example, the other noticeable changes to Blake's rubric are my modest increase awarded to the "culture" factor and a threefold, almost exponential, rise in "sense of humor's" importance. We are all aware of Blake's highbrow and nuanced taste in music and his preference for being around people with solid academic pedigree. Even more obvious is Blake's requirement that his intimates appreciate and understand his own jokes.

The rest is just minor fudging in order to get a rounded sum of 100 total points.

Some trends I found: First, it was not easy to moderate Eyes' significance as there is obvious self-selection on the part of Blake to consent to girls that he thinks have high-quality eyes -- a total of 4 girls had perfect 100s for Eyes, a sum only rivaled by Body. Personally, I found this relationship to be interesting, as typically only the effete, aesthetic or naive would be so attracted to eyes and only the horny or the particular might be so clingy to body beauty.

In contrast, only 1 young lady scored a perfect 100 for sense of humor. This could either reflect Blake's high standards for jokes or his surprising sexual compass.

As expected, there was some correlation between face and eyes, as well as between the three variables of culture, sense of humor and intelligence. Except for Girl A, Girl B and Girl D, who all managed to be unsophisticated and boring despite their smarts.

I expected that Blake would have scrambled or randomly ordered Girls A - I so as to prevent our ability to "guess" who each anonymous variable might represent, though one characteristic of his table makes me doubtful: that the Innocence factor decreases consistently with each consecutive girl, perhaps signaling the general trend for girls to become more experienced or worn with time.

As a true scientist, I will let my data stand for itself, and caution from making any unwise conclusions. Enjoy!

Blake
Doc - You are a clever wordsmith no doubt, and make some worthwhile observations. However upon first look I notice one critical flaw...

The "looks" versus "personality" [ratio] is essential. While women's [looks] are obviously objectified to an extent, I believe I was generous in my 30% allocation to personality. Your model allocated 39% to personality (an increase of 30%!). So if someone were to score below average, say 70, on the "looks" and get a perfect "personality" score she would total 72.7, or an unsuitable mate.

I admit the beta version needs tweaking, however the 70/30 split must remain.

Tim
The Chairman objects to the fanciful and indulgent nature of the current categories, and demands that more attention be paid to the following:

'Shame Index'
Manual Strength/Dexterity
Scythework (an extension of the above)
Vertebral Integrity
Downtroddenicity

Each category is to be weighed equally. National dedication to the insertion of one's shameful genetic deliverance module into the grateful receptacle of mates exhibiting equal proficiency in the above categories will assure eternal prosperity for future generations.

Blake
I've considered your argument and feel that only Scythework should be included...[worthless blabber]...On a somewhat related note, subjects will be deducted 9 points if they have sickle cell anemia.

Jeb
in bullet form:

• having nearly completed "war and peace" and once having taken a turn of the 20th century russian history seminar, i agree wholeheartedly on the importance of scythework.

• as for the debate on whether eyes and face should be separate or not, i believe in separation, much like church and state (eyes~church and face~state) and cite billy idol in my defense.
["Eyes Without a Face" link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SpmWIyjilQo]

Katie
LAYDEEEZZZ,

can we get a rating system of our own??? I'm not making no FUCKING Excel document, cause that shit's for nerds, but I will propose the following catergories to determine a man's worthiness.

Ability to Fix Things
Natural Musk
Body Hair Quality
Sporting Talents
Literacy
Jokesmanship
CUDDLING
Beefiness

Additions, suggestions, percentiles? Please add!

Bridget
Great start katie.
I'd like to add a few for the ladies.

wideness of stance
sweet party moves
number of joke tattoos
emotional depth (most points for an emotional depth of .5)
Lose points based on hours a day spent playing video games.

And factor in the well known Taney Girth Equation (C/L)
when the fraction is greater than 1, you enter an entirely different bracket.

[Editor's Note: actual girth equation is length/2X width. Less than or equal to one indicates girth. For example: 7/(2*3.5)= 1]

Tim
Might I suggest:

Emotional width
Semen consistency (both in terms of material gradient and degree of reliability)
Haunch strength
'Badgerstyle' proficiency

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Blake back. I enjoy this debate, so any input is appreciated.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*UPDATE*

Reader Nat from Massachusetts adds the following:

Hey guys. I'm happy to see that you're taking it upon yourselves to smoosh the complexities of human personality and morphometrics into a few pithy variables. It's like a Principal Components Analysis. When Blake finally chooses to breed, oh man...

Also...meet my new favorite baseball player. He's blind, but he can actually HEAR the spin on incoming pitches. Amazing!

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?statsId=7812