Moby's World Perspective Part 1: Rating Females, the 4 Tier System

I really shouldn't be typing this as my wrists are bound so I don't feel sharp pains up and down my forearms but since I can't use the computer I'm bored. There's only so much grocery shopping, house cleaning, laundry, er, laundering and sundry chores I can do in a day.

A long while back I promised I'd explain my own rating system for the female side of the species. So here we go, Moby's World: Rating the Human Female (I'm so gonna lose my female readership over this. Sorry, The German.)

Anyways...

Since cavemen could count on their fingers, human males have been rating women on a scale of 1 to 10. "Oggette have sexy sticky-outie brow ridge and soft, luxurious facial hair. I give her 8". Now after millennia of this inaccurate, subjective system I'm here to propose a new system based on more modern pop-psychology and pseudo science (you know, those "institutes" that develop things like a better facial creme or hair care products). The Tier System!

Now if you take the numbers from 1 to 10, you'll note that if you start at the top with 10, move down a level using 8 and 9, move down another level with 5, 6 and 7 and use the lowest level for the remain 1 to 4, you have a pyramid. Okay, a triangle. I'd provide a diagram but my hands are bound, making the use of a mouse impossible.

So there we have 4 tiers: from top to bottom, Tier 1 (10), Tier 2 (8-9), Tier 3 (5-7), and Tier 4(1-4) plus a handy-dandy translation from the old, outdated and ineffective method to our new, scintillating, wonder-inducing tier system.

Now I hear you asking (as you report me to the local Women's Rights activist community) "what's the big deal? That triangle is simple a mathematical/geometric known behavior. Have you been taking too many pain-killers?" Therein lies the genius! Each tier represents not only a physical rating (considering only the topographical features of the female form) but contains, with a genius of simplicity, a sociological placement as well!

Every observer of the female form must know that women of the approximate physical attraction factor group together: the babes hang with babes, the plain janes stick to their own etc. Using that fact a single individual can be placed in a strictly subjective tier, but identifying the tiers' of their social peers also gives a great deal of information about an individual!

Let us take for example a group of three women. Using our original scale, Alice is a 6, Betty is an 8 and Carol is a 7. These of course are based simply on each individual without the social context: a strictly topographical assessment. Using our system, Alice and Carol are Tier 3 but Betty is a Tier 2. Let us now examine some possible scenarios and implications that are hinted at by the new system.

Now these three women are not far separated using either scale, so at first glance, there should be no surprise they are hanging around together. Maybe they are childhood friends or co-workers. As usual in any social experiment, there are always extraneous factors that disprove the theories. In the spirit of the state of science under the current Presidency, let's ignore the facts in favour of proving our theories!

Since most women group with others in their own "attractiveness level", why is Betty hanging with Alice and Carol? One possibility is that Betty has a slight self-confidence issue, not thinking herself quite as attractive as the world would see her. She considers herself a "T3" despite the fact she on a physical level a "T2". On the other hand, it's possible (though slightly less so) that Alice and Carol see themselves as Tier 2s, and they have accepted Betty (or insinuated themselves) as friends. But the most likely scenario is that both of the above are true: Betty is a little self-depreciating; Alice and Carol think petty well of themselves. So what does this tell us?

Not much except when you consider the following: women will consider only those males that are as attractive as they see themselves to be date-able! Now I hear you, what about the babes with the douche bags? With the money bags? Two factors come into play here: what the woman defines as "attractive" and how attractive the males see themselves, effectively meaning there is a Tier system for guys as well! However, it should be quite obvious that the placement criteria for each sex differs radically. At the heart of course is physical attractiveness, but self-confidence (even if unwarranted) plays a role: much more in the rating of men than of women.

How do we apply this to the real world? (Yes, I still have a tenuous connection to the real world). First, as a male, know your physical placement in the tier system. Using myself as a guinea-pig, I have been on the high-end of tier 4 for a while (say a 4 or 5), therefore from an initial-attraction perspective, I was a potential mate for those women who perceive themselves in tier 4. Now this does include some women who are actually in tier 3 but have self-perception issues and/or psychosis of one form or another (or both). As I've improved my physique, got rid of the glasses, reduced my hunch and gained a little self confidence, I can classify myself as low to mid Tier 3 (a 6 or thereabouts). This has shown itself as recently Tier 3 women looking twice at me and not for the purposes of remembering my face so they can pick me out of a line-up.

But the most significant implication easily (or conveniently) explains why beautiful women date douche-bags.

You do have to give them credit, douche-bags in general have good dress sense (while lacking all other kinds) which can mask physical imperfections. They also tend to keep themselves quite fit (as I see them all the time in the gym, I must assume that's pretty much all they do) so physically they can raise themselves at least a full tier on physical attractiveness alone. The clincher of course is that they see themselves as studly paragons of masculinity: they think they are gorgeous and completely desirable to the opposite sex and therefore are perceived to be so by most women (not all, thankfully). By fooling themselves, they can therefore fool others.

And that's why women are attracted to douche-bags! While time and experience (long-time exposure) with individual specimens may completely change their minds, it's that initial attraction of like-tiered (in both self- and others- perception) that gets them the girls.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'll have to go buy some polo-style shirts and pop the collars (at least wearing three at a time, all collars popped). And buy six litres of Axe body spray. And get drunk(er).