I have been asked to explain and defend my writing of How to Rate Girls: The Base Ten Scale Defined enough times now that I feel I should write it down here instead.
As always I implore you to form your own opinion on me and my work, if you believe me to be a horrid misogynist I am not going to beg you to change your mind. I do, however, ask you read my other articles before you make this judgement. I suggest these in particular:
I believe those articles represent my thoughts and intentions well. Now let’s get into the specifics of the article.
Why it was written
When this blog was first created it was under the mandate of my boss at the time. I was told to create a blog and write “the type of articles to attract the Maxim reading crowd.”
I went off and wrote articles about cars, breasts, gadgets, super models, and sex. The most popular of these articles became the rating one.
When my place of employment had no more use for the blog I had them give it to me (I love the domain and had written the “be the best lay she’s ever had” series, and while it’s not my best work; I was proud of it.) From this point on I started writing the articles I wanted to write, no longer filling the pages with tabloid-like trash.
Why it was not removed
This is actually the more important question, and it has three answers:
- In the interest of growing a successful blog, it made no sense (from a marketing and SEO standpoint) to remove the #1 (at the time) posting on the site.
- This article accomplished, greatly, the goal in which it was written. As such I am still proud of it, odd as that may sound.
- I think it’s not quite as despicable as some people make it out to be.
Reading the lengthy string of comments on the blog will give you an idea of how the idea of a superficial rating scale is divided. Half the people (women and men alike) take issue, while the other half see no reason for alarm.
While I agree that judging a person entirely on looks is not ideal human behavior, it’s something unavoidable. I do not condone sexism or rape culture, but I also do not believe a rating scale, as crude as it may be, does this.
Even the most resolute opposition to this article would be lying if they claim to have never said something similar to “that person is beautiful”, or better yet “that person is very beautiful”. Saying something similar to this is using a three or five point scale, even if you did not intend to.
Everything in the world has a counter, a balance. If you say someone is beautiful then you are required to concede that both “ugly” and “average” must also exist:
If you use the term “very beautiful” then two more points must be added to the scale:
If you would like, it’s possible to number this scale, instead of using descriptors. The two most common ways for numbering a scale like this are:
As you can see, we now have a five-point rating scale. What this article has done is add another five points, allowing for a more granular rating.
I will agree that the wording of the article, and examples used, are crude. I will agree that this article isn’t “nice”, but I will not agree that it’s hateful, spiteful, or purposely misogynistic. I don’t believe the worth of a person should be based entirely on their looks, but before you have a chance to meet someone, and get to know them as a person, this is the only thing we have to work with.
When it comes to meeting a potential mate, attraction is paramount to all of us. It doesn’t matter what other people find beautiful, it matter what is beautiful to you. It’s more appropriate to say that you should use a rating scale to judge your emotional reaction to another person, and not to judge their appearance. But at that point I would simply be hiding behind semantics, as I believe them to be the same thing (until the point you begin to learn their personality and character).
I am truly sorry if the article offends you, and am happy to continue this discussion if you so desire.