Sunday, April 13, 2008

Check this out: The Ladder Theory

One of my friends pointed out this website to me:
Ladder Theory

If you go through and read the whole thing, it brings up some interesting points. I don’t really agree with most of them.

First, it says that the thing women care about most in a man is money/power. And that we say we care about sense of humor/sensitivity/intelligence/etc but we actually don’t. That’s retarded. Of course there are women who will marry someone for his money, but they’re what we call golddiggers. I don’t believe that women care more about wealth than personality. It’s kind of insulting and full of crap.

It also says: “A guy who is a complete asshole to a woman seems to somehow look better to them.” Again, not true. In fact, it’s the exact opposite. I think I speak for both sexes when I say that attraction to one’s personality makes them more physically attractive.

I think a lot of the arguments this website makes come from women who are unsure of what they want and probably somewhat immature. Like, that women want a guy who deals drugs because he’s more interesting? I mean, sure once in a while, we can date “bad boys.” But in the end, we’re going to find someone who isn’t screwed up. I think it takes a certain level of maturity to realize that “exciting” boyfriends aren’t actually that great.

Well. In going through this website more, I realize it’s more about who you’ll have sex with as opposed to be in a relationship with. So the whole theory is based on a rating system which differs between the sexes, and when you see someone, you rate them, and the higher their rating, the higher they are on the ladder. The higher they are on the ladder, the more you want to have sex with them....What a dumb theory.

But anyway, it goes on to talk about women and how we have not one, but two ladders. One is for guys who are just friends who will never “get to have sex with her.” And if a guy is on the friends ladder, but doesn’t know it, and he makes a move on the girl, she’ll shut him down. I kind of can’t argue with this one. There are just some guys that aren’t dateable. And Duncan and I have discussed this before, though not necessarily on the blog. It’s called the “friend zone” and it just means that that level of attraction is not there. I guess it does suck if you like someone and they don’t see you as more than a friend or brother/sister type.

The website says that if a girl says any of the following to a guy, he should realize he’s on the friend ladder: “You’re like a brother to me,” “You’re like a big teddy bear,” “I feel like I can talk to you about anything,” “You’re so nice,” and “Can you help me with my homework?” The first two, I agree with. Obviously, a girl isn’t going to date her brother/brother-like figure. The rest don’t mean anything. I don’t see how they give any clue as to whether a guy is in the “friend zone” or not.

This Ladder Theory also states that women cannot have guy friends. WHAT A LIE. I would die if I didn’t have guy friends. It does qualify the argument by saying:
There are exactly 3 cases whereby a guy and a girl can be friends:
1. The guy is gay
2. The guy does not find you attractive
3. The guy already has a woman much higher than you on the ladder
Pick a guy who does not meet any of the criterion on the above list that you think is your friend. Then ask yourself this question: If you were both alone at his place one night, and you excused yourself to the bathroom and came out naked and asked him to have sex with you would he:
1. Tell you he doesn't want to risk the beautiful friendship you have created with messy physical entanglements.
2. Comply.


This website is ridiculously and obnoxiously hilarious. But I still think there are times when the guy can be straight, single and find a girl attractive, but not be attracted to her. Like, to the point where having sex would just be awkward. So, I’m officially completely disagreeing with this theory.

I think this is enough talk about the Ladder Theory for one night. There’s a TON of stuff on the website we could talk about, and we probably will at some point.

No comments: