This post is also available in: German
It’s been a long time since we’ve had a female beauty ranking post. It’s good to remind women why they were put here on Zod’s green earth. But this time, instead of featuring a series of photos of exceptionally pretty women and arguing vociferously over the small details in
character… personality… chest size that separate a 9 from a 10, this round of female beauty rankings will ask you, the readers, to judge the looks of the kinds of strong, empowered, independent “real women” you might meet at the office or strolling around your neighborhood walking their cats.
So there won’t be any Victoria’s Secret models or celebrities in this post; today is a celebration of the everyday women who walk among us. These are your women, American Son, and this is your life. Time to put away childish fantasy and rank the beauty of the women you are most likely to meet in real life.
You can vote however you like for each photo; this is a random sampling of women, not necessarily a comprehensive selection meant to encompass all ten points on the classic 1 to 10 female looks scale. There are fourteen photos altogether and a poll under each one. Your most accurate vote will be the vote you make with your gut, so don’t dawdle too much over each picture. God forbid this turns into a contest.
The women are nameless, and in no particular order. Each poll has a neutral description to help readers identify who’s who in the final tally that will be an average of everyone’s rankings. CH will analyze these results in a future post.
Programming notes: Some persnickety nerds have argued that there’s no such thing as a “10″. CH disagrees. Catherine Zeta-Jones and Michelle Pfeiffer were both 10s in their primes. Going back further, Audrey Hepburn and Grace Kelly were 10s. Megan Fox is a legit 10 today, as is at least one member of whomever Disney is grooming to be the next F YOU DAD slut du jour. Just because 10s are rare doesn’t mean they aren’t real.
Out on the opposite, far left tail of the female looks belle curve, there are arguments about the existence of zeroes: Women with sexual worths approaching absolute zero (in degrees Pelvis). Anti-freeze advocates argue that as long as there is at least one man, however much of a Quasimodo loser he may be, who is willing to dump his gnarled seed in an extremely ugly woman, that woman cannot be said to have zero sexual worth. However, there are some monstrous pump and dumps so disheartening to an ugly woman, and so indicative of her bargain basement price on the open sexual market, that sex with a subterranean creature will actually lower her SMV (sexual market value) beyond that SMV which would generously accrue to her in the absence of evidentiary relinquishment to the contrary.
To put it differently, the sex skew in innate sexual discriminatory disposition (men being on the whole less discriminatory, especially as pertains extremely short term conquests) renders inadmissible in the court of public opinion the ability of very ugly women to occasionally get laid with abject losers (think homeless piss-stained bums) as proof of the non-zero SMV of those women.
The reason 0 is not usually included on most 1 to 10 female looks rankings has to do with the practical and valid assumption that for the vast majority of men, 0s aren’t recognizable as female humans. Their inclusion on a female looks scale would then be irrelevant, sort of like including toddlers, grandmas and the morbidly obese. However, 0s, like 10s, do exist, and in the realm of photo-based beauty rankings where the goal is measurement rather than practical filtering of live women to streamline target acquisition, the 0 option is a useful corrective to a traditional 1-10 scale that ignores women who are not worth porking with Manboobz’s thimbledick.
Given the above programming notes, any commenters clogging the board with complaints about the metaphysical improbability of 0s and 10s will be summarily banned. Stay focused, people.