Recently, a dimwitted Harvard student lamented that, during a drunken evening, he rated Harvard coeds, along with other young Ivy League men. The ratings were on their “looks” only; they did not score the young ladies on their minds. The male student, upon reflection, was so distraught over his failure to have been politically correct (and for acting how most normal young men do) that he authored an op ed detailing his regrets. Really, the self-bemoaning article was likely written so that this half-man could, in his mind, engender some of the other gender at his non-gender-recognizing educational institution. In other words, he was trying to curry favor with the liberal, feminist gals there – and score with them.

As our own effort to be politically incorrect here at Empire State News (“ESN”), all of the male staff have rated, on a scale of 1 – 10, numerous famous women. We have purposely rated them on “looks only” because the rating game is otherwise not fun. More so, we are hoping that the women out there, who still like a man’s man, will think our ratings are cool – and we’ll score.

When rating the women, the following words and phrases were bantered around by our staff (just being honest): hot, sexy, pretty, cute, babe, attractive, gorgeous, beautiful, sultry, stunning, sensuous, tasty, sweet, and delicious. Those, of course, were the positive words; there is no need for us to print the negative ones.

The male staff at ESN, of course, love, like, respect and care about women just as much for their minds. However, just like all normal women, we recognize that all normal men are attracted/unattracted to members of the opposite sex in substantial part based upon looks. Same for the same-sex-liking people in our communities. Let’s get real here: any normal person has a scale of looks going on in their heads. Disingenuous frauds are trying to act like they’re not doing the same thing (in rating others) and, even more silly, that there is something “wrong” with it. They throw out cliche phrases such as “objectifying women.” Well, here we are at ESN with our subjective ratings of chicks from across the spectrums of Hollywood, news organizations, politics and more.

One of our female staffers (Temple Li) advised that she wanted to participate in the rating game, even though she is heterosexual, so we permitted her to join in as a matter of news cohort camaraderie. However, it’s hard to take her scores seriously because “what the hell does she know”?

The other ESN staffers who donated their time to this important cause are: Jimmy The Saint, Rocco Artesian, Daniel Sonninshine, King Kong, John James, Paul Thomas, and Wendle McPherson.

Following are the women who came out as our top 15, with their average scores next to their names (let us know if you agree). We’re not printing who received our low scores because there’s no reason to hurt anyone’s feelings; we rated over 250 women.

Scarlett Johansson (actress) – 9.5

Heather Nauert (former Fox News anchor) – 9.5

Julie Banderas (Fox News anchor) – 9.5

Mila Kunis (actress) – 9.5

Shannon Bream (Fox News anchor) – 9.5

Jenna Lee (Fox News anchor) – 9.25

Margot Robbie (actress) – 9.25

Kirsten Dunst (actress) – 9

Anna Kooiman (former Fox News anchor) – 9

Jesse Jane (actress) – 9

Brandin Rackley (actress) – 9

Michelle Malkin (Writer/Political Analyst) – 9

Megan Fox (actress) – 9

Christine Nguyen (actress) – 9

Jessica Alba (actress) – 9