The topic of comparing the number of individuals one has slept with to your friend’s number. This is likely thousands of years old. In its current form, it remains as it always has, unfair. It is unfair on the poor ugly sod who punches above his weight but is beaten in this argument by the attractive cunt who accumulates results through sheer genetic luck. It has always been unfair, until now. The following scoring method(s) will allow us to genuinely see who has true game and who has just been dealt good cards.
All methods relating to fair scoring of this matter should rely on two main principles, the quality of the player’s looks and the number of shags/people shagged the person has had. Therefore, for truly fair comparisons, the former point needs clarification. It is suggested within this theory that the player should have their looks scored out of ten by an independent panel of judges. Ideally, this panel should consist of the following: a straight member of the same gender, a straight member of the opposite gender and a gay member of the opposite gender. This is, of course, open to moderation but it is believed by the writer that the aforementioned method provides true balance. The score should not be disputed as it will impact on the final results.
The first method of scoring is based around raw numbers. So, you take your score out of 10 provided by the judges and compare it to the number of individuals who you have slept with. For example, a 5/10 who has shagged 10 people has a ratio of 2:1. If a 10/10 has slept with the same amount, it is 1:1. The theory is that the 10/10 has to work twice as hard, because they are twice as good looking. The individual with the best ratio is the player with the best game, statistically. This, like golf, allows shit people to compete against the best.
One issue with the above method is that a 10/10 could just go out and bang 30 1/10s in a week to increase their score. As a result, a more complex version of the game has been established. Again, one must take their score provided by the judges and compare it with the number of the individuals they have got nasty with. The difference is, this time, the quality of the prey is taken into account. So, instead of just adding 1 to your total number of shags each time, you rate the person out of 10 and add this to your score instead. This requires great honesty from each player, if judges are not available to rate their shags. For example, if one were to sleep with three people, 3/10, 9/10 and 6/10, they would score 18 points, instead of 3 under the first method. Your total points scored is then rated against your score out of 10 and again a ratio is calculated. This prevents ridiculously attractive people using their lottery-won looks to score points with the less fortunate, and provides greater reward for facially challenged people who overachieve.
Two noted difficulties with this theory are as follows:
If someone gets a partner and only sleeps with them but does so on a regular basis, they are temporarily disqualified from this method of scoring. Shagging one attractive person 500 times is very nice and kudos to those people but it does not translate into good game play. They may return to the game once they are done or, with agreement from all the players, an additional clause may be added to the rules to allow for number of shags. For example, each shag with a 7 scores 7 points and then your total score (which would likely be huge) is then given a ratio against your score out of 10. It is the writer’s opinion that this is a poor way of doing things but as this is a liberal publication, please feel free to make your own rules.
The second difficulty is that some people get uglier and hotter as time passes and as a result scores are thrown around. There is no real way to solve this. Updating your score/10 each year is good but mathematically problematic and just sticking with your score can throw the averages later down the line.
That being said, this theory is rock solid and, much like Einstein’s lesser Theory of Relativity, will be taught in schools for years to come.
Alfology2 