The Badger’s Four-Point Scale

A preliminary aside: The Badger saw his shadow yesterday morning, which portended that the Green Bay Packers would win their fourth Super Bowl title. Here at the Hut we know that domestic violence doesn’t increase during the Super Bowl, but you can be sure many women in Wisconsin had their pick of sausage during and after the game.

I want to tackle (ahh you see what I did there?) an issue that is near the top of the list for derailing blog discussion threads, along with “what do alpha and beta really mean” and “how many is too many for a woman”: the ten-point rating scale.

The ranking is but one component of a woman’s true SMP value (and obviously an almost-negligible part of her value as a person), but it’s the biggest “alpha” trait that gets a man’s biological engine revved, in the same way that male social skill is a key factor in switching on a woman’s sexual machinery. Long-winded discussions of whether this or that model/actress/girlfriend/starlet of an Internet meme is a 6 or a 7 or an 8 is splitting hairs with a cocaine-caked razor blade.

I’ve long since distilled the usual ten points down to four.

4 – Smokin’ like a stovepipe.

3 – Pretty.

2 – Plain.

1 –  Busted.

The aim here is to be accurate at the expense of being precise. Unless you’re running a modeling agency, there’s just no good reason to make it any more complicated. It sharpens the lines between the groups, and most importantly, it allows for less debate about value and more discussion about action.


  • Discussions of rating evoke images of teenage boys trying to peep through the tile gaps into the girls’ locker room. but commenting on a woman’s (or man’s) physical appearance is not degrading, unless it’s the only thing you care about. If you’re spending a lot of time reducing people to their base physical value you might want to spend most of your time somewhere else. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t talk about it at all; denying that these things matter in the SMP trading floor is sophistry, and when you deny reality you are stacking the deck against yourself.
  • These are men’s reactions to women. Women have their own ways of rating other women, and they often seem to be completely unrelated to the men’s (just as many men are totally unable to accurately gauge how attractive women will find other men).
  • Rankings are age-dependent, and as I will explore in a forthcoming post, 2’s and 3’s seem to age better than 4’s (which may or may not have to do with better-cultivated female beta traits).
  • Generally speaking, a man’s tolerance for social dysfunction is proportional to ranking, but remember the aphorism “show me a 10 and I’ll show you a man who’s tired of her.”
  • There’s no disputing about taste. Different features evoke different responses in different men; like stock price, rating is a statistical abstract of the overall market’s opinion.
  • By no means will looks determine the satisfaction of your man’s carnal life;  the visual ranking is alloyed with, among many factors, female beta traits, personality, frequency, the variety she can present, and her desire for the man she’s with. (“Just do it” is not sufficient; men don’t want their wives and girlfriends to lie back and think of England, they want to be desired by a woman who is into it.)

Now let’s quit wasting time discussing the finer points of market valuation and more talking about the real issues of navigating the marketplace.


Filed under original research

12 responses to “The Badger’s Four-Point Scale

  1. The four point scale makes alot more sense. Much simpler.

    As you say, men and women generally seem to have NO CLUE about the opposite sexes mating priorities and are thus in constant state of bafflement.

    It always make me chuckle that women think men are “complex”!

    [Mutual ignorance of the opposite sex is a massive problem in the SMP. It’s bizarre to think that 80% of the truth-tellers are probably in the PUA community. “Complex” is almost always a synonym for “I’m looking at this through the wrong frame of reference.” I have a friend who is always complaining that “women make no sense.” Attempts to reprogram him with reality-based models have met stiff resistance.]

    Badger, you are part of a small group of guys on the comment threads of Susan Walsh’s “Hooking Up Smart” trying to spell things out to women in simple terms, but unfortunately the ladies there either just deny the bald facts or they just nod their heads and forget what they just learned the next day.

    Its kind of funny. Kind of sad too.

    [Some people will only accept an education from the school of hard knocks. But I give Susan’s readers a bit more credit. I hardly expect them to type “you know, you’re right” into the comment box but I’m sure a portion of them will think it over and change their minds eventually.]

  2. I like it Badger – I think this is a useful step in simplifying the conversation. Some men on HUS have pointed out that the only thing that ultimately matters is a guy’s floor. The world is broken down into women you would bang and women you wouldn’t. Also totally agree with the other two common causes of derailment, LOL.
    Thanks for the link.

    @Workshy Joe
    I don’t believe we’ve “met.” Join in the convo sometime – perhaps you will be successful in communicating the bald facts to flighty and forgetful ladies.

    [Way to initiate, Susan – who knew the Badger Hut would be a matchmaking service!]

  3. @Susan: Badger and a few other guys are already doing a great job on the comments trying to keep it real. The threads at HUS are absolutely EPIC as it is. It can take me a whole afternoon read through one!

  4. I just keep saying the 1-10 numbering system is best understood as a metaphor. It’s near pointless trying to define them beyond that.

    Otherwise I use my three point scale for women…

    Rental, Lease, Own.

  5. @Workshy Joe
    OK, just know that you are most welcome!

  6. Athol,

    At some dealerships they’ll let you “take her for a test drive.”

  7. Pingback: Linkage is Good for You: RIP Tura Satana Edition

  8. Pingback: Random thoughts about and fun with the 10 point scale and ratings « whiteboykrispy

  9. just had to say your rating system is great, but my guy friends have furthered the science by categorizing girls via area codes.
    EX. She’s from the 949
    Face- 9
    Personality- 9

    * less pragmatic, more entertaining

  10. Christi, thanks for stopping by. That is funny.

  11. Susan Walsh wrote at February 7, 2011 at 6:13 pm:

    Some men on HUS have pointed out that the only thing that ultimately matters is a guy’s floor. The world is broken down into women you would bang and women you wouldn’t.

    Probably also: This is out of my league
    Probably not.

    (This is: Is there also a gay’s ceil?)

    / Kari Hurtta

  12. Pingback: The Body Agenda Doesn’t Lie | The Badger Hut

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s