All Comments on 'A Proposed New Rating System'

I think this was hilarious. Nice touch of humour, it kept me interested. Keep it up. And i have no idea if this works on men, but it does seem a bit broad. It's good that it gives a general idea for each category though.

I use a comparable scale, but I call it attractiveness.

Nothing to do with their appearance but rather something about the person that does cause that "yearning" sensation, whether sexual or pure curiosity; something that makes you both look, and listen.

The 1-10 scale is archaic and misogenistic. Your entry is more like a categorization of desirability. You threw out all preferences and instead took into account reactions- a stroke of brilliance. I shall pass this new system along. Bravo!

I have seen the issue this way for years, but never thought to put the kind of structure to it that you did. Absolutely brilliant!

In my own mind, the archetypes for each stage are:

One: Paris Hilton (the quintessential One!)

Two: Annette Bening

Three: my wife

NP: my co-worker Rebecca

NR: my wife's best friend Amy

I liked this, but you really need to sort out your simple writing skills (especially spelling!). It's "too much" or "too whatever" NOT "to"! If you can't spell to save yourself use a spellchecker, it'll make your writing look a lot better.

... the presentation needs a little work. Spell-checkers only catch spelling errors, so the wrong word, spelled correctly, will pass. A good grammar-checker will pick up those missed "homonyms" such as "to, too, two", "their, they're" and my favorite "shutter, shudder".

But despite the spelling/grammar problems, your article amused and intrigued me. A funny guy can learn to spell, but I've never seen a good speller learn to be funny - one either is or isn't. You have a gift, and I agree totally with your system, so I gave you 100% for this submission (warts and all).

BTW, if you're looking for a "celebrity example" for your category #1, may I suggest Paris Hilton?

I like your thinking here.