The Reality Method 2.0

The Hot Babe Scale: Bigger, Longer, and Uncut

In The Hot Babe Scale, I set down the basic outline of predictive psychology of women at different levels of physical attractiveness.

In research for that post, and getting the reactions of guys who have read it, I came to the conclusion that it would be necessary to write one more post dealing the natural extensions of the HB scale idea: other desirable qualities women could be measured on.

A HB Scale for All Seasons
Let me give credit where credit is due: it was Tom Leykis who said on his radio program that there really ought to be two scales for assessing a woman’s value, the first dealing with physical beauty, and the second dealing with self-esteem.

Tom suggested that a 1-10 scale for self-esteem, correlated with the common 1-10 scale for hotness, would really lead to a more meaningful overall picture of the quality of the woman.

Think, for instance, of a HB10 who has Self-Esteem of 3 (1 being the lowest, 10 being the highest) — the girl is likely to cause nothing but drama.

(Actually, this might be the perfect description of a stripper or hooker — a woman who is physically beautiful but has some past trauma or self-esteem issues that cause her to seek constant external sexual validation in the form of “clients”, and is at the same time unable to form lasting relationships. And I realize that not all strippers and hookers are low self-esteem so don’t comment or email me suggesting I am generalizing otherwise).

On the other hand, an HB5 (some purists would say a B5) with SE of 10 is going to cause trouble — making demands and having expectations all out of proportion with her value as usually perceived by men.

As the theory goes, a “sweet spot” can be found when the two measures coincide…for instance, a HB7 with a SE of 6 or 5, or a 10/9 or 10/10 (which some might call the “perfect woman”). Theoretically, anytime someone’s self-esteem is not wildly out of whack with their actual social value (either too low or too high) they are better relationship material.

Self-Esteem, Intelligence, Morality….And More
But this brings up another question; what exactly comprises someone’s “social value” anyway? If you define “social value” as the value that a given person offers to social (group) and interpersonal (intimate) relationships, then it has to be more than just their looks and self-esteem.

In fact, there are myriad characteristics that one might factor in when considering someone’s “value” as a relationship partner or friend: certainly looks and self-esteem might factor in, but they are more superficial and less fundamental than others: intelligence, charisma, empathy, conversational skills, moral behavior…

…But putting all these factors together into a numerical rating scale would clearly be madness. Given that tastes differ, how could we agree on which dimension or “number” is more important? Then there’s the problem of creating rating tags of algorithmic complexity for each girl that walks by….

Guy 1: Hey, dude, check out that hottie! She was at least a 8/6/3/7!
Guy 2: No way, man, did you see how she walked? She was definitely more like a 8/8/2/9.

Now I know guys are better at math, spatial relationships, and memorizing sports statistics, but even I think the above would be just a little ridiculous (not to mention cumbersome).

I already talked about self-esteem and its basic impacts on sexual behavior in this post. I think the point of all this is just to say that women are complex, like men, and any system we use is just a model, bound to be imperfect, and in some ways a deliberate oversimplification.

But even this “poverty of models” leads to a much greater understanding of women than the throw-up-your-hands “Women are the ultimate mystery!” meme that a lot of men have grown up with (myself included). Models are useful because they are simplified, blunt tools — their value is in their predictive validity and ability to guide men in generalized interactions.

Because ultimately, that is the goal we have — we are trying to understand women better, because it can only help us achieve healthier and happier interactions and relationships with women.

A guy who has a basic understanding of these models, sitting across from a woman at Starbucks at their first meeting, is going to be more likely to treat her appropriately if he’s thinking:

“She’s hot….but with low self-esteem…which may explain why her behavior is so stand-offish…she is afraid of getting hurt. But she is very intelligent…which makes it even easier for her to have low self-esteem…because it causes her to be over-critical of herself…”

As opposed to,

“Damn this bitch is hot. Why does she gotta be so stand-offish though? All I want is sex. This proves it, all hot women are bitches. Women suck.”

Obviously, the former is (scientifically speaking, of course) roughly 100x better than the latter…for both parties.

The Geisha Model
While writing this post, I really got to thinking about all the different characteristics that go into making a really high-quality woman, a woman I would see as being desirable not just for a one-night-stand or continuing string of sexual liaisons, but as a life partner….and that got me thinking about the geisha.

The word geisha is a combination of two Japanesekanji (gei and sha) that, combined as such, are most accurately translated as “arts person”, “artist” or “arts doer” (Wikipedia).

To my understanding, the Japanese geisha are literally women trained into the role of ideal entertainers or companions. The geisha go through extensive training in music, dance, singing, art, and conversational skills. Their purpose is to entertain, and although their training did not explicitly include it (at least not that anyone has ever observed), geisha did in the past sell sexual favors to their clients.

Geisha do not have sex with their clients anymore — contrary to the common Western stereotype of geisha as high-class prostitutes — but the fact that they did some sexual favors in the past really got my wheels turning.

Why not, after all, consider women on all these dimensions? If we men are to be evaluated not only on the length and girth of our cocks, but also on our earning power, overall physical prowess and appearance, general and situationally specific dominance and position of authority over other males, fashion sense and style (especially in recent years with the advent of shows like Queer Eye), emotional sensitivity and ability to for empathic listening, why should we not apply the same measuring stick to the women in our lives?

So I give you The Geisha Model: a comprehensive and holistic idea that women, if judged at all, ought to be judged not just on how pretty they are and how likely to cause drama, but as a whole person: on their conversation skills, ability to entertain (singly and groups), command of language(s) and literature, ability to stimulate us intellectually as well as physically, culinary skills, sexual adaptability, morality (including ability to keep their word) and empathy.

If we are not happy with the “quality” of women that are available, we have only ourselves to blame — as men, let’s start demanding more, and not settling for less. The women of the world may just take the hint.