|
return to updates read
more Tom Turtle
The
Rating System

Having
been informed (wrongly) that it was padded (so to speak) with
full-frontal nudity involving Uma Thurman, Mira Sorvino, and
various thirteen year-old girls (only Danny Devito is actually
naked at all, and that only when his skirt flew up over that
hot-air vent), I went and rented the movie Beautiful Girls
today. As you may know, since you never get out of the house,
there is a scene that caused a lot of flack in the media where a
group of guys rate various women on that 1 to 10 scale (a 1 being
Howard Stern in a dress and a 10 being Brad Pitt in a dress). I
have no opinion at all about the so-called political correctness
of this scale: what people say or do in the privacy of their own
homes is their own business. . . as long as I can still look
through that little space where the mini-blinds don't quite reach
all the way down to the sill. What I'm trying to say is that, as
a technologically and mathematically advanced society, capable of
beaming a truly enormous entity like Simon Cowell through that
miniscule cable that runs out the back of your TV--and splices
into your neighbor's 99 channel service--we should be very, very
careful about defining our terms. For instance, is that 1 to 10
scale we use with such careless abandon, flinging around terms
with such reckless nonchalance, perhaps without having had all
our shots--is that scale, I say, integral? Exponential? Scalar?
Tubular? Totally? You see? You
don't know. You may think your total, and may I say, spectacular,
ignorance on this point to be moot (or as they say in India,
mooooooot), but I assure you, no matter how firm you are
in your conviction, no matter how well thought out your premises,
no matter the number of airtight arguments in your favor, you are
not in India. No, you are in a country where we treat cows with
no more than due respect, never getting lost in our admiration to
the point where we might give them a 4 or 5. OK, 6 for one of
those cute little Herefords with white socks and that curly
little hair between her eyes.
I came to this conclusion, that there might be some confusion in
The Scale, when a buddy of mine (by "buddy" I mean
someone who, in a life or death situation, I would kill--but not
necessarily eat) gave Uma Thurman a 9, rating just her body. For
the record, in the movie there were separate ratings for body,
face, and personality. Very few of us have dated faceless,
lifeless bodies, but you don't know my buddy, so we'll leave the
question open. And according to the pea-sized, brain-like
substance inhabiting his simian cranial cavity, Uma Thurman comes
in at a 9 on the faceless, lifeless body scale. The first
thing I asked him, the thing you are probably yelling at the top
of your lungs, alarming the neighbors and scattering the gerbils,
is "have you seen Baron Munchausen? Hunh? What about
Dangerous Liaisons? Hunh, Hunh? What about Taxi?
Wait, that was Danny Devito." How
can any man with hair on his gerbils give Uma a 9? Where can you
go and randomly select 10 women and one of them is better looking
than Uma? OK, where besides Charlie Sheen's hotel room? I'll tell
you where. Nowhere, that's where. Guys are misusing this scale,
and I'm blowing the whistle. They act like its a scale of 1 to
100, or 1 to 1000, and only one girl in a thousand gets a 10.
This isn't Olympic diving, boys, where the little Chinese girl
does 9 layout flips, 8 reverse twists, and 7 inverse cannonballs,
cutting the surface from ten meters without throwing a drop of
water, and the judges give her an 8.5 because she crawled out of
the pool sloppy. Let me give
you a little analogy to make it even clearer. Go downtown
tomorrow. Pick the first ten women you see. Drive them down to
the pool. March them up to the ten-meter platform (making sure
they have, in the meantime, acquired the proper swim attire, and
you the proper insurance). Then return to poolside with your
pencil and notepad, or perhaps your laptop, crane your neck
skyward, raise your hand as the jump signal, and calmly,
scientifically, rate the wreckage. The floating debris. The
flotsam and jetsam. This is a metaphor for what your system has
done to these women (one of whom, by the way, is mathematically a
ten). This is how most guys
rate a woman: Start at 10. Her legs are a little flabby, 9. I
once had a girlfriend whose breasts were larger, 8. She could be
tanner, 7. Actually, I prefer brunettes, 6. She looks a little
like Miss August, but Miss August didn't have any of those little
pimples on her ass, 5. Maroon fingernail polish? 4.
Appendectomy scars make me nauseous, 3. Before you know it,
you've taken a perfectly lovely woman, and turned her into a mass
of symptoms. But think about it, men. Say the population of your
city is 200,000--a small town, nowadays. Out of 100,000 women,
there are 10,000 who must be 10's. Never thought about it that
way, have you? That means if you rate, say, 6 on the man-meter,
there are 40,000 women in your neighborhood who can snub you with
absolute impunity. In fact, are mathematically required to snub
you without a second thought. 10,000 more women, the 6's, may
also snub you with only minor remorse, perhaps without serious
inconvenience. Ambitious 5's are allowed to snub you if they
already have boyfriends who rate 6 or higher. A 4 may snub you on
Tuesday/Thursday, but only if she goes to confession on Sunday.
Yes, empirically speaking,
you're lucky to be getting a look-in. And if you're one of those
50,000 guys who doesn't even hit 6, well... Well, actually you're
doing just fine, as long as you're in a band. And if you're a
dope addict, heck, just skip straight to the top.
I certainly think I've made my point, which is that this scale,
any scale, must be used properly, or the piper be paid.
Actually the piper must be paid regardless, if there is to be any
piping, which is also pertinent, if not strictly linear. No, this
1 to 10 scale is not like the Olympic one, where we all know that
the little Chinese girl is one in a million, even if she can't
fill out a swimsuit. In a pile Upon a log Over the
water Third from the bottom Secreting my own hard shell Tom
Turtle
read
more Tom Turtle
If this paper was useful
to you in any way, please consider donating a dollar (or more) to
the SAVE THE ARTISTS FOUNDATION. This will allow me to continue
writing these "unpublishable" things. Don't be confused
by paying Melisa Smith--that is just one of my many noms de
plume. If you are a Paypal user, there is no fee; so it might
be worth your while to become one. Otherwise they will rob us 33
cents for each transaction.
|