Ladder Theory

by Chuck Ross on October 26, 2009

Gentlemen and ladies, I’d like to (re)introduce Ladder Theory*. The idea isn’t mine, rather it was developed in 1994 by a guy named Dallas Lynn. While the concept behind Ladder Theory is nothing new, the metaphor provides a new mental model with which to observe male/female dynamics.

Men have one ladder on which they vertically rank women according to their ability to induce erections. On John’s ladder, Julie may be ranked at the top meaning that he would die to have sex with her. Gertrude, a warpig, is at the very bottom of the ladder. John would only have sex with her for three reasons: inebriation, bribery, and species propagation. The essence of the monolithic male ladder is that female companionship is merely a function of how much the guy wants to put his penis inside her. “Friendship” is a foreign term for a man’s ladder**, and “interested” has only one definition with varying degrees of magnitude.

In contrast, women have two ladders on which they allocate the men in their lives. “Friendship” isn’t foreign and “interested” can have many meanings. Like concealed ovulation, fake orgasm, and descended breasts, the erection of two ladders serves to hide womens’ true nature. Frank may occupy the highest rungs of Jasmine’s “Real Ladder” – the one where sex happens – while Timmy may occupy the highest rungs of her “Friends” ladder – the one where masturbation takes place (look out below!).

The essence of a woman’s ladders is that they aren’t related. The men on the “Real” ladder are sexual possibilities depending on certain circumstances while the men on the “Friendship” ladder are not. A woman can have a guy friend that she values more than the possible sexual relationships with men on the “Real” ladder even though there’s no chance of her hooking up with the friend. The female ranking system isn’t as straight-forward as mens’ (go figure). We have one variable from which everything else follows; they have two from which chaos and mayhem ensues.

According to Ladder Theory, a sea of abyss – described as a witches brew of self-loathing, embarrassment, and awkwardness – lies at the bottom of these ladders. A man attempting to hop across from the “Friend” ladder to the “Real” ladder may fall into the sludge. The authors point out that – unlike Nietzsche’s tightrope walker – there is no rope to guide a man from the “Friendship” side to the other. I’ll add to Ladder Theory by asserting that – if he wants to make the transition – a man has to make a running leap with a full head of steam, hoping to get across. While the chances of this actually succeeding are as good as a lion escaping from his cage at the zoo; anythings possible. Be aware that most lions that try to escape their cages are euthanized. If the friend does happen to make it across the abyss, he’ll only be able to grab on at the bottom of the “Real” ladder due to gravity’s pull. If he jumps but fails to grasp hold of one of the rungs, he’ll land face first in shame stew.

One might ask why it is necessary to have the 2-1 ladder structure. Why can’t men be ranked on one ladder according to overall attraction? The answer is simple, and it has to do with the variables by which each sex is attracted to the other. Men are most interested in physical beauty. Their single ladder ranks women – for the most part – on that one variable. Some women may leapfrog others based on willingness to hook up, but its all still a function of attraction. The single ladder implies that all women could theoretically move up or down the scale. This doesn’t hold when women rank men. Once a man has been relegated to the “Schmuck scaffold”, he has little chance of moving to the next ladder.

I’ll leave you gentlemen with the cogent advice of the Theory’s author:

“You can see that a lot of problems can be avoided by declaring as soon as possible to a girl that you will not be friends under any circumstances. You can explain that she is too attractive or you can be blunt and say you don’t want to bend your “friends” over a table and fuck them, but would rather play poker and go to the races with them, thus disqualifying her from friendship. As long as you are clear. This may scare a girl away. But if it does what would you want with such a skittish little twit anyway?”

*After I wrote this piece, I found that Dave in Hawaii had written on it a couple years back.

**Gay men have a ladder dichotomy similar to women’s.

{ 167 comments… read them below or add one }

Gx1080 October 26, 2009 at 04:03

With everything, a long time ago I discovered that I rather try to do the jump, friendship be damned. Is healthier. That got me friends with benefits, although my case is with an ex.

I’ll say it again: Friendship be damned.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
Krauser October 26, 2009 at 04:45

I used to say to my (ex)wife: “If I want interesting conversation and intellectual stimulation, I’ll talk to a man”.

It was very clear that while I enjoyed her company and was fully commited to the marriage, I wasn’t being a FRIEND. Same thing goes now. If a woman starts the LJBF route I reject it and plough for the left ladder. If that doesn’t work she is designated as “entourage” rather than “harem” and treated as social proof only.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
someone October 26, 2009 at 05:32

“Friendship” is a foreign term for a man’s ladder.”

This is objectively wrong.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Zammo October 26, 2009 at 06:40

I have been recommending the Ladder Theory website for years.

As for the LJBF nonsense, there is a definite way to use that to one’s advantage. Use that female friend for introductions to her single friends. This has two advantages:

1. Meeting more single women.
2. Showing the “friend” that you are desirable to other women and maybe a ladder jump is possible.

If the “friend” is reluctant to make introductions to her single friends, dump her fast as a friend because she’s fundamentally useless to you.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Deborah October 26, 2009 at 06:48

I know I’m going to get slammed for giving anecdotal evidence, but it’s personally difficult for me to believe that men can’t have female friends when I have male friends.

It might be a generational thing. My parents told me that when they were youngsters, boys and girls mostly kept to themselves – unless they were dating (maybe it was also a regional thing for them). Yet they noticed with me and my sisters that we were quite adept at having male and female friends.

As far as the jump from the friend’s ladder to the sex ladder, yea, I can definitely agree with that as a female. When you’re hanging out with someone you consider a potential lover and she starts telling you about a guy she’s interested in – you’re stuck in the friend zone. Females think of their male friends like brothers – off limits in the sack.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
spunk October 26, 2009 at 06:56

Why even be platonic friends with a broad in the first place? Any common interests? Any intellectual stimulation? Zilch. Nada.

Look at the females. They can’t even be *genuine* friends with their own sex, always backstabbing, catty, gossipy. They know no honor. And you, a man, want to be *friends* with their kind? What are you. stupid?

Maybe it’s me and my definition of a friend. To me, a friend is a friend in good times and bad, and a friend for life. Receiving a ‘poke’ from a random ‘hmm have we actually met?’ individual on Facebook is NOT a friend.

If you want friends, get male friends.
The female ones are merely acquaintances, to be used for any one of the following purposes: 1) work, 2) sex, 3) ignore. Life is so much less complicated if you draw out the boundaries this way.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Thras October 26, 2009 at 07:05

Okay, there seem to be two observations here:

1) Men would like to sleep with all of the attractive females that they interact with socially.

2) Women have a mental category for attractive men that they won’t sleep with.

I think that number #1 is fairly true, although a crude generalization. A lot of guys like the woman they are with and simply aren’t that interested in cheating. A lot depends on the individual and the society.

#2 doesn’t ring true to me. Maybe it’s really an expression of the fact that it’s very easy to blow your chances with a woman early on. When you first meet her, you have the air of mystery about you, she’s not comfortable with you, etc., etc. If you blow it then, it’s very hard to create attraction from nothing.

Regardless, all this “ladder theory” stuff seems to be mental wheel spinning without any solid evidence to say whether it’s true or not.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
AC October 26, 2009 at 07:26

There’s more going on than that. Men judge their female friends, on a non-physical basis, on basically the same traits that they’d judge girlfriends – pleasantness, interestingness, intelligence, femininity, etc.

However, the personality traits women want in their male friends (largely the same as above) are NOT the same as the ones they want in their boyfriends (socially dominant.) So that’s where a lot of the disjointness comes from.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Chuck October 26, 2009 at 07:39

Zammo,

“1. Meeting more single women.
2. Showing the “friend” that you are desirable to other women and maybe a ladder jump is possible.”

Ah, you may have found a chink in the Ladder Theory’s armor. Befriending a chick for social proof purposes is a good move.

The Theory isn’t perfect, by any means. Of course some men can have female friends, but its safe to say that women are much better at keeping things at the platonic level than men are. The way in which we categorize the opposite sex is the whole point. The structure is the key.

Thras,
“2) Women have a mental category for attractive men that they won’t sleep with.”

I believe, rather than compartmentalizing him to the Friend ladder, she puts him near the bottom of the Real ladder since he is still a possibility. But just like an unattractive woman isn’t a viable option for a man, she still remains at the very bottom of the ladder just like the guy a woman just met. She may not think that she would sleep with him, but she hasn’t put the Mark of Death on his forehead yet.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Novaseeker October 26, 2009 at 07:43

Maybe it’s really an expression of the fact that it’s very easy to blow your chances with a woman early on. When you first meet her, you have the air of mystery about you, she’s not comfortable with you, etc., etc. If you blow it then, it’s very hard to create attraction from nothing.

That’s precisely the point, though, based on what AC notes:

There’s more going on than that. Men judge their female friends, on a non-physical basis, on basically the same traits that they’d judge girlfriends – pleasantness, interestingness, intelligence, femininity, etc.

However, the personality traits women want in their male friends (largely the same as above) are NOT the same as the ones they want in their boyfriends (socially dominant.) So that’s where a lot of the disjointness comes from.

Men have one criteria, whereas women have two. Hence two ladders for women.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Zammo October 26, 2009 at 07:52

it’s very easy to blow your chances with a woman early on.

Before a women has sex with you she’s looking for reasons to reject you.

After she has sex with you (and it’s good), she’s looking for reasons to keep you.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Eman October 26, 2009 at 09:11

An article y’all might want to reprint or reference here, from Taki’s: “Feminism’s A Bitch” — http://www.takimag.com/article/feminisms_a_bitch/

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
JohnnyBravo October 26, 2009 at 09:19

“This is objectively wrong.”

I hate to go off-topic like this but whenever someone busts out the word “objective” in a sentence where it doesn’t belong I feel like a verbal ass-whopping is in order.

Tacking “objectively” to your argument does not make it more convincing or hard-hitting, so stop raping the English language, it has been through enough.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Novaseeker October 26, 2009 at 09:48

An article y’all might want to reprint or reference here, from Taki’s: “Feminism’s A Bitch” — http://www.takimag.com/article/feminisms_a_bitch/

Hehe, that was a good and funny read!

“I remember a comment on Jezebel that said, “I resent mcguinness saying it’s ‘natural’ for women to have children.” How’s that for the pendulum snapping off its hinges and flying into the toilet?”

LOL.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
someone October 26, 2009 at 10:13

JohnnyBravo, maybe you should consult a dictionary. I don’t know, maybe that would help.

Since it is an irrefutable fact that men and women can be just friends, it is objectively wrong to claim otherwise.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Novaseeker October 26, 2009 at 10:22

Since it is an irrefutable fact that men and women can be just friends, it is objectively wrong to claim otherwise.

*Can* be, yes. Is it common to have friendships between men and women where the man has absolutely zero, zilch, nada, rien, attraction to the woman? Nope. It happens, but it’s not common.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Arbitrary October 26, 2009 at 10:30

No, Someone, that would make it empirically wrong to claim otherwise (if, in fact, your claim were evidence against the ladder theory, more on that in a moment). Something is objectively wrong if it is wrong, independent of perspective. The ladder theory, like any other model of the behavior of a complex and chaotic system, fits some components of the system (in this case, people) better than others; for the ladder theory to be objectively wrong, you would need to show that no person thinks this way–a task I hope you will admit is impossible.

Regardless of your word choice, your “evidence” itself is lacking. Even if one were to accept your claim that men and women could be platonic friends, with neither desiring a more sexual friendship, the ladder theory has a perfectly valid explanation for this. The woman ranks extremely low on the man’s ladder, while the man is on the woman’s “friend” ladder. Neither has any sort of sexual desire for the other, and their interactions are entirely based on some other mode of mutual benefit (or else they would not interact at all).

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Reinholt October 26, 2009 at 10:35

Exactly, Arbitrary.

More to the point, I think it also illuminates two general situations:

1 – Women think they have a lot more male “friends” than they do, simply because those guys have not yet revealed they want to fuck her (if they ever do).

2 – Women tend only to be able to have platonic friendships with men if they are not really on the man’s radar; this can (and does) happen, but it’s not nearly as common as people think.

Keep in mind it’s a cognitive model; if you take this to read in broad absolutes, you’re missing the entire fucking point, which is that it’s a rough approximation (not a perfect description) of reality.

One that, I might add, works at least decently to understand some of the common clusterfucks in male/female dynamics regarding being “friends”.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
JohnnyBravo October 26, 2009 at 10:49

someone -

Though I think Arbitrary laid enough smackdown on your uneducated ass, I just can’t help but poke a corpse with a stick when I see one.

You know, you don’t even need to go the old-fashioned way and crack open a dusty old book, just google the definition of objective.

This will probably hurt you and your Starbucks crew of metrosexual liberal arts majors a bit, but the truth (perhaps the objective truth, even?) is that nothing in the field of social science can ever be objective.

So unless you know what “objective” means, and I don’t mean in the modern sense (ie anything regarded as true by you or whoever uses that word the way you did must be objectively true, rendering all opposing viewpoints objectively wrong), please learn another language and shit that one up. I think English words have lost enough meaning by being regurgitated by monosyllabic mongoloids.

May I interest you in Urdu or Afrikaans instead?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Professor Hale October 26, 2009 at 10:59

It seems that men also have a double ladder of a sorts. The women at the bottom of the ladder due to morbid obesity, age, and blood relatives can compete among themselves as low-grade friends while never raising up on the male sex radar to be considered as viable sex partners, even if both of you are drunk.

Speaking of which, Alcohol helps jump the gap on female ladders. Once she is having sex with you, it is harder for her to rationalize that it isn’t possible.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
thedudeman October 26, 2009 at 11:19

Hahaha, girls hate to hear this news! The bottom line is: The economics of sex are stacked this way. In the words of an evolutionary psych guy who I read: ‘When a man propositions a woman, she can respond in one of two ways; she can say “yes” or she can say “no.” [... A man] can say “yes” or he can say “yes, please.”’ (From Satoshi Kanazawa in the ‘Scientific Fundamentalist’ blog at Psychologytoday.com)

I don’t believe that male-female platonic relationships are impossible, they are possible. But, they are the exception that proves the rule. This, I believe, can be demonstrated in an Austrian Economics style instead of by math: Take a look at your friends who are married, and see “how chill they are” about doing something that’d be considered date night material with people of the opposite sex: It doesn’t happen.

I actually have told girls point blank that I’m “not just a friend”. You can disagree with that tactic if you want — utilize whatever strategy works for you. However, I learned about the friend zone the hard way, and came up with my own strategy that probably echoes what other guys do: “Escalate, escalate, escalate” and determine if she’s into it — if she’s not? That’s fine, “there’s plenty of fish in the sea”. Sometimes if escalations -aren’t- going my way, I tell her straight up that I’d like to go out with her as a pivot — to help me meet more girls. (And yes, in sales terms, that “creates urgency”)

Long ago I had a girl ask why I wanted to be physical when she wanted to be “friends first” and then most recently a girl asked why I wanted to kiss her when I went to kiss her. And I laughed, and said “Cause I’m a guy!” and she told me how she had guy friends who didn’t want to kiss her. So, I did her the favor of explaining how there’s two types of guys: The direct straight forward guy who goes for the kiss (and then some), and “the weasel” — the guy who hangs around with “female friends” hoping to get a piece.

Ladies, sorry…. Those aren’t “male friends”, those are beta males. And frankly the beta males at large are fooling themselves probably even worse than women at large are.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Chuck October 26, 2009 at 11:23

Professor Hale:

“The women at the bottom of the ladder due to morbid obesity, age, and blood relatives can compete among themselves as low-grade friends while never raising up on the male sex radar to be considered as viable sex partners, even if both of you are drunk.”

Actually this raises a good point as to why men mostly don’t truly consider women friends. A good-looking guy doesn’t hang out with unattractive girls. Even if they’re his “friends” they tend to be somewhere in his league.

Yes, there are secondary benefits for a guy to befriend good-looking girls, but there would still be a prevalence of good looking guy/ugly girl friend pairings if men actually wanted to be friends with women.

A really good-looking woman will hang out with a guy who has zero chance of getting her. I guess the “fag hag” phenomenon is just a way to prevent men from trying to jump ladders and the awkwardness associated with that.

“Speaking of which, Alcohol helps jump the gap on female ladders. Once she is having sex with you, it is harder for her to rationalize that it isn’t possible.”

This is a good point. Alcohol can be the bridge between the ladders.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
kis October 26, 2009 at 11:31

1 – Women think they have a lot more male “friends” than they do, simply because those guys have not yet revealed they want to fuck her (if they ever do).

My own experiences bear this out. A lot of my friendships with men turned into friends with benefits scenarios, although the men seemed to value my friendship enough that they continued with it even after they were in LTRs with other women–probably due to mutual interests and my ability to relate to them on their level (hanging around the pool table ogling women, for instance, lol).

And yeah, I have a definite friendship ladder. There are men I like to be around that I would never, ever consider a quick lay with, let alone a relationship. But they’re pretty few and far between.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Chuck October 26, 2009 at 11:31

thedudeman:

“However, I learned about the friend zone the hard way, and came up with my own strategy that probably echoes what other guys do: “Escalate, escalate, escalate” and determine if she’s into it — if she’s not? ”

Yes, I learned the hard way too.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
kis October 26, 2009 at 11:33

Speaking of which, Alcohol helps jump the gap on female ladders. Once she is having sex with you, it is harder for her to rationalize that it isn’t possible.

Oh yeah.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
kis October 26, 2009 at 11:49

An article y’all might want to reprint or reference here, from Taki’s: “Feminism’s A Bitch” — http://www.takimag.com/article/feminisms_a_bitch/

“The Bastardization of Instinct that is modern feminism has been making women unhappier every day since its inception. Their bodies tell them to breed so they do, but then there’s this strange inclination to “do it all” and be a man, too. This leaves them running two lives which is a pain in the ass.”

That’s it. In a nutshell. Circumstances put me in the position of lving two lives, and feminism kept telling me if I couldn’t do it–and do it well–I was a failure. If I didn’t have feminism putting that burden on me and telling me I should thrive under its weight, I’d have changed the situation or bailed out of it sooner, and I’d be a hell of a lot less resentful right now.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Professor Hale October 26, 2009 at 11:56

Speaking of which, Alcohol helps jump the gap on female ladders. Once she is having sex with you, it is harder for her to rationalize that it isn’t possible.

This is also why men buy women drinks and also why it can now be considered “rape” if a woman is insuficiently sober to give consent. Because we all know that she wasn’t really into you that way, even though she seemed like it when she was drunk.

The human race would have died out long ago if not for this magical potion.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
julie October 26, 2009 at 12:49

Thras says:

1) Men would like to sleep with all of the attractive females that they interact with socially.

This is a good point IMO. I could write a huge amount on this subject from the other side of the coin :D

I bet there must be lots of women out there who would think, “Yeap, we were all just doing what life is all about. Reacting to our environment, reacting to each other”.

Men have the position of trying to sleep with as many attractive females as possible and attractive females have the position to find ways to keep them at bay for they can’t have their legs spread 24/7 to please all the males that they come across socially.

It also makes perfect sense why females are turning to the bad boys during their prime years. It is about one trying to get in and one trying to stop them. IMO

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Chuck October 26, 2009 at 12:56

Julie:

“Men have the position of trying to sleep with as many attractive females as possible and attractive females have the position to find ways to keep them at bay for they can’t have their legs spread 24/7 to please all the males that they come across socially. ”

Yes, this is what happens. Vagina is a scare resource. As Milan Kundera wrote in The Unbearable Lightness of Being:

“she promised too ardently; and without making it clear that the promise involved no guarantee on her part.”

Men should understand that sex with women is scarce. We don’t want a bunch of sluts running around, but we also don’t want women taking advantage of the fact that men are likely to bend over backwards if they think they are guaranteed access. That’s women’s way of gaming the system. Thus, Game.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
julie October 26, 2009 at 12:59

To professor Hale,

This is also why men buy women drinks and also why it can now be considered “rape” if a woman is insuficiently sober to give consent. Because we all know that she wasn’t really into you that way, even though she seemed like it when she was drunk.

Amazing isn’t it. I bet when society had first come across free sex, everyone thought is was great. But it didn’t say great.

I look at the pictures from Woodstock and think “Wow”. They were all into drugs big time and sex and drugs work well together. And the days of sex, drugs and rock n’ roll have been spoken from people who were there as if it was great. But it isn’t great for the following generations. IMO

The human race would have died out long ago if not for this magical potion.

Hehe. I heard prostitution is the oldest profession and alcohol brewing the second eldest.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
zed October 26, 2009 at 13:02

1) Men would like to sleep with all of the attractive females that they interact with socially.

Some men. Personally, I have always considered married women totally off limits. Unfortunately for me, I have met a lot of married women who did not agree. One got so angry at me for saying no that she lied to her husband and insinuated that we were having an affair, at which point he threatened to kill me.

But, yes, any unmarried or otherwise unattached woman is fair game unless she appears to be –
1) certifiably insane
2) in Wallet Seeking Missile mode
3) makes it completely clear that she has quit the game and has no interest.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
zed October 26, 2009 at 13:04

the days of sex, drugs and rock n’ roll have been spoken from people who were there as if it was great. But it isn’t great for the following generations. IMO

And the long-term results haven’t turned out so great for those who were part of it – tons of broken marriages, rampant STDs, and a gradual disillusionment with love, the opposite sex, and the human race in general.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jabherwochie October 26, 2009 at 13:09

“It also makes perfect sense why females are turning to the bad boys during their prime years. It is about one trying to get in and one trying to stop them. IMO”

Could you elaborate. I’m confused as to what your getting at.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
julie October 26, 2009 at 13:09

To myself,

Hehe. I heard prostitution is the oldest profession and alcohol brewing the second eldest.

Now that’s funny. Women would have been saying, “I’ll give you sex but what will you give me?”

And the men must have got sick of trying to bring bigger and better gifts as they didn’t have the material possessions back then and said, “Here try this instead”. (alcohol)

Just a thought. :D

But, yes, any unmarried or otherwise unattached woman is fair game unless she appears to be –
1) certifiably insane

Does replying to my own comment count?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
zed October 26, 2009 at 13:11
But, yes, any unmarried or otherwise unattached woman is fair game unless she appears to be –
1) certifiably insane

Does replying to my own comment count?

Depends on how long you carry on the conversation and keep up both sides of it. And, no, I’m not jealous because the voices only talk to you. ;)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
julie October 26, 2009 at 13:24

the days of sex, drugs and rock n’ roll have been spoken from people who were there as if it was great. But it isn’t great for the following generations. IMO

And the long-term results haven’t turned out so great for those who were part of it – tons of broken marriages, rampant STDs, and a gradual disillusionment with love, the opposite sex, and the human race in general.

You are right.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
slwerner October 26, 2009 at 13:26

Professor Hale – “Speaking of which, Alcohol helps jump the gap on female ladders. Once she is having sex with you, it is harder for her to rationalize that it isn’t possible.:

Seems rather risky.

A significant number of rape charges come from situations in which a woman has had drinks (or drugs), ended up consenting to sex with a guy friend; then, once sober again, rationalized that since she didn’t have any sexual attraction to him before, and none afterward, that he must have taken advantage of her.

A quick way to end up not only in the “abyss”, but also on the sex offender registry, and possibly in prison.

I’d urge extreme caution when considering having sex with a woman while she’s at any level of intoxication if you know full well that she has you on her “friend” ladder.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
julie October 26, 2009 at 13:36

Hi Jabherwochie,

“It also makes perfect sense why females are turning to the bad boys during their prime years. It is about one trying to get in and one trying to stop them. IMO”

Could you elaborate. I’m confused as to what your getting at.

Well, I am a firm believer that females are still turning to men for protection. You can hear it in the words feminists say, “Not enough females are going to the police for their problems”. The police can’t take care of everything and women can’t be saying, “No” all day long. :D

A bad boy has a reputation of being an alpha. Females can easily use him as her excuse why she has to say, “No!” and many males won’t try on a female with a bad boy.

Soooo, what do you think of what I said?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Novaseeker October 26, 2009 at 13:38

Personally, I have always considered married women totally off limits. Unfortunately for me, I have met a lot of married women who did not agree. One got so angry at me for saying no that she lied to her husband and insinuated that we were having an affair, at which point he threatened to kill me.

Remember, Zed, this is because you are a part of the patriarchal conspiracy to oppress women. By refusing to sleep with her on grounds of being married to another man, you have demonstrated your standing as a co-conspirator in the patriarchal cabal designed to enforce and support sexual ownership of women by their husbands.

So much for morality — it’s all a patriarchal construct to support male dominance.

Brave new world coming up shortly.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Doug1 October 26, 2009 at 14:10

It’s possible to have a hot girl as a friend for a good while and then convert that to sex. You just have to do it in a certain way from the get go.

She probably can’t be a really good friend. There has to be a reason why you can’t or shouldn’t go beyond being friends other than the lack of interest of either of you, especially her. And you have to start with and maintain a level of flirty sexual tension between the two of you, at a light level is fine and restrained by “of course we can’t”.

E.g. a hot girl at work. She’s got a bf; you’re in a relationship. “We’re just friends” and a little “innocent flirting” is just fun and doesn’t mean anything. Even if she doesn’t have a bf really but is dating around, you’re better off pretending to her you think she does, which she’ll probably be happy to do if she’s in fact interested in you and you’ve made clear you feel you can’t/shouldn’t.

That situation can definitely be converted, depending on how she feels down the line about whatever relationship she may be in, or stepping out on it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
BeenThere October 26, 2009 at 14:42

One important thing:
When a woman says LJBF, it does not mean you are on her friends ladder. (By the way, it is much easier to be on both if you start on the real ladder.) Most lovers will never make it to friend.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Niro October 26, 2009 at 15:03

“A significant number of rape charges come from situations in which a woman has had drinks (or drugs), ended up consenting to sex with a guy friend; then, once sober again, rationalized that since she didn’t have any sexual attraction to him before, and none afterward, that he must have taken advantage of her.”

This is a good argument for:

1. Videotaping all sexual exploits to record that it was consensual.
2. Releasing said videotape on the internet if the woman goes bitch-crazy and accuses you of rape.
3. Not being a schlub in the sack and giving her a reason to regret sleeping with you.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
epiclolz October 26, 2009 at 16:06

Trying to the alchemy of converting friend to lover is a dominated strategy. The inherent asymmetry is that the only conversion worth doing is lover to friend (if it’s you making the transition as you move forward). Why waste your time trying to covert lead to gold. Great link by the way. The first time I saw that website was back in like 1999. It was probably the most salient analysis I’d read up till that point.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
zed October 26, 2009 at 16:10

By refusing to sleep with her on grounds of being married to another man, you have demonstrated your standing as a co-conspirator in the patriarchal cabal designed to enforce and support sexual ownership of women by their husbands.

OK, sounds pretty weird to me, but if you say so. LOL

This is one of the uglier aspects of Game that I discovered by accident. I learned the hard way that having married women as actual friends “friends” does not work. I’m old fashioned enough in my value system that being married simply takes someone off the ladder completely – full stop. Having absolutely zero sexual interest in a woman is a sort of ultimate “neg” and insults and challenges her sexual power.

It took me a long time to figure out what was going on when I would get hit with the “accusation” (and it was clearly an accusation from the way it was presented) “You don’t see me as a woman!” The first few times I got this my reaction was “Huh?!?!!!! Of course you are woman. What in the world are you talking about?!!?!!” Then I realized that I wasn’t playing my designated role in the sexual script and what these women were saying to me was “You don’t see me as potential sexual partner.”

I got trapped in Game several times before I learned how to avoid it. I suppose that some of those women might have called me a “clit tease”, but I was naive enough to still think that marriage vows meant something and that women did naturally tend toward monogamy. Thus I felt comfortable in being at ease with my married women friends, joking with them, and basically having exactly the same sort of non-sexual friendship that I had with my male friends. I assumed they had the same sort of boundaries I had, and that theirs were just as firm as mine were.

Boy, was I ever wrong.

Their approach was usually very subtle, and I could just ignore it and play “just another dumb male who didn’t pick up on a woman’s signals.” It created a form of “plausible deniability” that I could use. The problem was that it didn’t always work, and the “signals” would increase in intensity to the sledgehammer stage and eventually take the form of an overt confrontation.

Some times “No, you are married, end of discussion!” worked, but sometimes it didn’t. The 3 most common comebacks were –
“My husband doesn’t need to know.” (comeback – “But I would, and that is something I just don’t do.”)
“My husband doesn’t mind – we have an ‘open marriage’.” (tougher to handle – “That’s fine, it’s still not my thing.)
and
“What if I weren’t?” (oh fuck, just crossed into the danger zone) (comeback – “I don’t play ‘what if?’, you are and that is the end of the discussion.”)

Bear in mind that these were so-called “friends” that I wasn’t completely prepared to blow off – that damned Leo loyalty. The goal was to extricate myself from the situation and still keep the friendship. Unfortunately, I learned that it never worked. Hell really does have no fury like a woman “scorned”, and if you tell a woman “no” she will get you back for that.

I think women hate not being on your ladder at all just as much, if not more than, men hate being on women’s LJBF ladder.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
julie October 26, 2009 at 16:18

I agree with the friends status leading to something more. All my BFs have been my friends first.

One day all these PUAs are going to have a daughter, niece or have a mate with a daughter and this whole things is going to backfire. All of a sudden they will look at the girl and think, “My gosh, I wrote stuff online teaching males to do what I don’t want done to her”.

Plus females must get sick of men coming on to them, surely? They must cherish friendships.

So I think the thing to think about (if you are in a thinking mood) is, ‘how do we get from friendship to lovers before the friendship goes on too long’. Cause IMO if friendships go for a long time you think a relationship will run the friendship.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3
julie October 26, 2009 at 16:20

Oops, I meant ruin the friendship not run the friendship.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Mr.M October 26, 2009 at 16:27

So I think the thing to think about (if you are in a thinking mood) is, ‘how do we get from friendship to lovers before the friendship goes on too long’.

The general consensus is to never let a friendship start…IF the intent is to become a lover in the first place. Make the intent obvious.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
zed October 26, 2009 at 16:29

All my BFs have been my friends first.

‘how do we get from friendship to lovers before the friendship goes on too long’.

I think this is where a lot of miscommunication and misunderstandings between the sexes comes from. I see friendship as a primary relationship, not as a way-station on the road to something else. I certainly don’t start friendships with men with the idea in mind that it may lead to bed somewhere down the line, and I don’t do it with women, either.

I’ve heard a lot of women say that NiceGuys(TM) really aren’t nice guys because they are entering the friendship under false pretenses – pretending to be friends hoping that it will lead to bed.

The problem with the phrase “friends FIRST” is that it seems to imply that something else comes “next.” That puts complete control in the hands of women regarding whether there is a “next step” or not, and when it happens if it does happen. It does lead men to be dishonest because they can do a lot of listening to absolute boring drivel and nodding their heads like they are paying attention if they think sex might be on the table. Taking it off the table frees a man to say “I’m not interested in listening to this boring shit. I have somewhere else to be, c’ya, bye.”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
slwerner October 26, 2009 at 16:38

Niro – “This is a good argument for:

1. Videotaping all sexual exploits to record that it was consensual.
2. Releasing said videotape on the internet if the woman goes bitch-crazy and accuses you of rape.
3. Not being a schlub in the sack and giving her a reason to regret sleeping with you.”

These are generally good suggestions (following the issue of false rape accusations closely via Te False Rape Society (falserapesociety.blogspot.com), it’s remarkable the number of instances in which a recording ins the only thing that saves men’s asses).

However, I was specifically thinking about a situation on which a man who has been “friends” with a woman (and understands he is only on her friends ladder) might decide to try to take some advantage of her inebriated state to try to move their relationship on into a sexual one.

If he can be successful at impressing her in the sack, he just might succeed in jumping ladders.

The potential problems with this approach are two-fold. First, if she is not already sexually attracted to the man, it’s likely that she will have to be quite inebriated before she would consent; leading to the probability that, even if he was able to “rock her world”, she wouldn’t remember it well enough to appreciate it.

And, secondly, if a man has willingly be playing along with the “let’s just be friends” crap hoping to eventually get some from her, he has also already played into a dynamic in which she believes (rightly, or not) that SHE is the one manipulating him (weasel guys typically jump through any number of hoops hoping to prove themselves to such women). Thus, she is likely to feel that he has gone beyond just taking some advantage of her for sex, but has, in fact turned the tales of manipulation around on her. I’d imagine for the sort of women who string men along as “friends”, his manipulation of her is perhaps a greater transgression in her mind than his having taken advantage of her sexually.

He would have, so to speak, upset her apple-cart. As I view such female-over-male friendship relationships, they seem to be entirely predicated upon her ability to manipulate him long-term. If she believes that she has lost that ability – or, rather, that he has “taken” it from her – I can well see this as being the tipping-point for her deciding to retaliate via claiming the sex to have been rape.

Again, I was primarily focusing on the special case of some schlub trying to take advantage and jump ladders.

In other circumstances, a man can become the victim of a woman’s after-the-fact regret, despite the quality of his performance, or even his high position on her sexually attractiveness ladder (again, from reviewing the archives at The False Rape Society, it’s notable how often a false rape claim arises from the woman’s husband or boyfriend finding out about her infidelity). Thus, the video taping is highly advisable whenever possible.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
zed October 26, 2009 at 16:40

Well, I am a firm believer that females are still turning to men for protection.

A bad boy has a reputation of being an alpha. Females can easily use him as her excuse why she has to say, “No!” and many males won’t try on a female with a bad boy.

Soooo, what do you think of what I said?

I think it is a great observation, and explains a lot of things – including the famous “Let’s you and him fight.” The reasoning seems pretty simple – “If you can protect me from him, I will go home with you. If you can’t, then I will go home with him and let him protect me from you.”

I’ve seen it more times than I can count.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Doug1 October 26, 2009 at 16:50

Mr. M–

The general consensus is to never let a friendship start…IF the intent is to become a lover in the first place. Make the intent obvious.

As I said above in some detail, and will now say in a nutshell, I amend the consensus by saying that you can preserve the possibility of it becoming a relationship by initiating flirting tension right at the beginning but then having a reason to block anything happening: your relationship; hers; your work relationship. She doesn’t have to agree, you can have standards and fend her off. Yeah that takes so skill but is also fun.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
kis October 26, 2009 at 16:53

I think this is where a lot of miscommunication and misunderstandings between the sexes comes from. I see friendship as a primary relationship, not as a way-station on the road to something else. I certainly don’t start friendships with men with the idea in mind that it may lead to bed somewhere down the line, and I don’t do it with women, either.

Me too. I mean, I may be single and “on the make” right now, but when I was married, I had a lot of male acquaintances I’d have liked to be friends with if my ex would have been able to handle it. And the few hints of interest I sometimes got from them always kind of came as a shock to me, since I went out of my way to not give off vibes, to talk about my husband and kids, to just be buddy-buddy. I was married. Men were…off my radar to the point where the ones I’m looking at now as potential mates didn’t even register as attractive before.

I’ve heard a lot of women say that NiceGuys(TM) really aren’t nice guys because they are entering the friendship under false pretenses – pretending to be friends hoping that it will lead to bed.

There is nothing more frustrating to deal with than that. It’s like saying “I don’t value you for your friendship–I’m only pretending so I can get into your pants. But I don’t even value getting into your pants enough to be honest enough to say so.”

I had a NiceGuy(TM) pull that on me during the last year of my marriage. He came off as very sincere and just…well, nice. Helped me with my author website, wouldn’t take money for it or even let me buy him lunch. Then I split with my ex and he was suddenly right there all the damn time. When I told him I wasn’t interested, he made this big brouhaha all over town, badmouthed me all over the place. Pissed me right off. I’d never let him think he had a chance, never taken advantage of his friendship, didn’t even let him buy me a drink (except on my birthday, when everyone was). Did he think a couple hours helping me figure out my sitebuilder (which I tried to pay him for) entitled him to sex? Srsly?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
julie October 26, 2009 at 16:57

So I think the thing to think about (if you are in a thinking mood) is, ‘how do we get from friendship to lovers before the friendship goes on too long’.

The general consensus is to never let a friendship start…IF the intent is to become a lover in the first place. Make the intent obvious.

It can’t be the general consensus from men in actual long term relationships as lovers, can it?. It must just be in the, “Let’s have sex group”

What happens when you actually have to get to know each other? You can’t stay in the lover phase only forever for at some stage you have to look at each other and wonder if you are compatible.

I think this was one of the things older feminists wanted to give to younger men and women. To them being lovers was all there was and then years later they regretted it because they really didn’t have any more to offer each other.

You are I and everyone else (today) is not bound to a life commitment for being lovers but we are bound to a commitment to our children if we have them. They are the ones that need us to be far more than lovers or ex lovers.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Doug1 October 26, 2009 at 17:01

Julie–

Well, I am a firm believer that females are still turning to men for protection.

Feminists, including those who support or anyway find nothing terribly wrong with AA for women or with favoring girls in schools and propaganzing against men and for martial arts girls in the media, have no right to expect protection from men they aren’t rewarding by e.g. sleeping with them.

Most men haven’t gotten this yet. Gen Y is starting to. Emenating from places like Roissy’s.

I applaud that. Might motivate you girls to come back to the bargaining table on some of those outrageous feminist laws.

OK, I’ll be provocative here. Let’s take rape, that current feminist hot button. Maybe men on juries should just refuse to convict any man of rape especially date rape if there seems to be any chance the girls is a slut, a tease or a feminist. I.e. if the prosecution doesn’t put on strong evidence to the contrary cause we men know that rape shield laws will prevent the defense from doing much except by very cleaver maneuver, to getting in that she’s a slut. Being a feminist caries with the likelihood of being a slut. Or that’s the working theory here for this male guerrilla attack on feminists and their supporters. Note I’m not really so down on sluts (except to marry) or per se think they should be raped but I do think feminists should start losing men’s protection up and down the line.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
julie October 26, 2009 at 17:02

Hey, I like you Zed. I just want you to know that because I could very easily get into a deep conversation with you why the women have reacted to you the way they have and I can easily understand them treating you in a nasty fashion the way they did.

You do have a sex appeal about you, y’know. Such a waste. But just to get me out of others thinking I hardly say such a thing I need to add (my ego) that I find many gays a waste of a man too. :D

I just must get into my work and off this awesome forum.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Doug1 October 26, 2009 at 17:03

Kis–

There is nothing more frustrating to deal with than that. It’s like saying “I don’t value you for your friendship–I’m only pretending so I can get into your pants. But I don’t even value getting into your pants enough to be honest enough to say so.”

This isn’t even trying to understand the man’s point of view.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
zed October 26, 2009 at 17:06

I can easily understand them treating you in a nasty fashion the way they did.

I just must get into my work and off this awesome forum.

Tease!!! ;)

Please elaborate, when you get your work done, of course. ;)

On the serious side, julie, it has left me with a lot of bad taste in my mouth WRT women. It would be very enlightening to understand why they felt the need to be so nasty when I did not see that I had wronged them in any way – other than friendship and kindness.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Doug1 October 26, 2009 at 17:10

kis–

I had a lot of male acquaintances I’d have liked to be friends with if my ex would have been able to handle it.

Women are far more “unable to handle it” when their husbands hang out with attractive women without that woman’s mate being present. You may not have been on the make with those guys but your husband correctly calculated that they were probably on the make with you, looking for any opening.

You really do have to keep in mind that as a first approximation, women are hypergamous while men are polygamous. In truth some women are fairly polygamous (some sluts) though most of them only look that way; they’re really mostly hypegamous but unable to get as attractive a man as they can get to play with them to commit to them, and they’ve decided and are emotionally able to jettison the sex only with at least budding attachment on his side requirement.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
zed October 26, 2009 at 17:11

This isn’t even trying to understand the man’s point of view.

@Doug1,

I’m a man and have been on the receiving end of the same shit numerous times. I didn’t put much effort into understanding the women’s POV either. I thought that what they were doing really sucked, and the fact that they were doing it made me regard them as generally sucky people. When I found out they had been dishonest, then everything I had previously considered to be due to just being good people and good friends became suspect, the motivation for everything they had done got called into question.

I think it all depends on whose ox is getting gored.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Puma October 26, 2009 at 17:38

Given that men caught doing barnyard animals from time to time in all backwaters of the world I suspect that even the ugliest women (1′s, 2′s, etc) get sex on a regular basis.

Evolution seems to work by filtering out undesirable qualities when they are doing time in a male body. Remeber that all genes spend 50% of their time in male bodies, and 50% of their time in female bodies when going down countless generations. All except the few genes on the Y (those go strictly from father to son).

Any undesirable orc’ish qualities that may get a free pass when they are present in a female host, will eventually get zapped and get rejected out of existence in down the line in her sons and grandsons.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Puma October 26, 2009 at 17:41

… The “decision” for the continuation vs. extinction for a particular gene gets made when it’s doing time on a male host. Unless the gene is so disruptive that it causes even the female host to be rejected for sex and/or weakens the female host so much that she falls prey to predators.

In a majority of the cases the go/no-go decision gets made on the male manifestation.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
zed October 26, 2009 at 17:43

Men are R&D, women are the “production models.” (literally as well as figuratively)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Chic Noir October 26, 2009 at 17:52

Kis and feminism kept telling me if I couldn’t do it–and do it well–I was a failure.

No, that was good of female competitiveness telling you to outdo the next female. In the same way that modern women like to show off to other women how much they protect their children from germs, physical punishment, and buying children overpriced designer clothes that they will outgrow in a few months time.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Bhetti October 26, 2009 at 17:56

I’m trying to avoid males as friends altogether, kis. It’s useful to think they really are all like that and it will come up as an issue, sooner or later.

Why are women frustrated/disgusted by friended males wanting more?
A) If he never shows sexual intent towards you or even in general, he never gets evaluated on that level. A male expressing resentment at this fact is frankly incomprehensible and meaninglessly vicious to a woman. On the male side, he evaluates every woman sexually and automatically. A woman’s view is incomprehensible to him. Cue: drama.
B) The reason that is felt by women that they didn’t do a) was because they were afraid of outright rejection. And, although the cost of risking it is high, cowardice is never admired. Women feel they should have some idea of what they’re getting into. However, men have been propagandised somewhat to misguidedly engage in this misleading behaviour.
C) It creates distrust due to unclear intentions and exploitation e.g. he preys on your moments of weakness. Basically, knowing what I know about men, being vulnerable with a male makes me nervous as anything. You feel like you can never let down your guard. Indeed, you shouldn’t. You are accountable for any slips due to momentary weakness including substance fuelled.
D) There’s an insult. It leads a woman into thinking — all along — the interest was purely or strongly partly sexual. Normally flattering but when the original context was believing it was purely her personality, then it is quite a blow.

That said, there is much good with the progression of starting at friends and moving to something else, if the eventual sexual or potential sexual intent had been preliminarily declared at the start of the interaction e.g. flirting.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
kis October 26, 2009 at 17:57

Women are far more “unable to handle it” when their husbands hang out with attractive women without that woman’s mate being present. You may not have been on the make with those guys but your husband correctly calculated that they were probably on the make with you, looking for any opening.

I get that. But my vows were mine to keep, and I kept them right to the end. He was well aware that I’m not the type of person to break my word.

But at the same time, my ex had a female friend in the town where he worked for a while–a 45 minute commute by ferry–a young, attractive (okay, pretty freaking gorgeous) single mother who was going through a tough time with her daughter and an illness and being unemployed. He stopped by her place fairly often to check on her, or with groceries, and asked me if I’d make her a couple lasagnas. He took rather a lot of umbrage when people in that town started to whisper that they were getting it on on the sly–”She’s a friend, dammit”. He had quite a few female friends, in fact, and used to go to the occasional party across the water which necessitated him staying overnight, and I never worried about him cheating. For all his faults, I knew he wasn’t the type to do that.

This isn’t even trying to understand the man’s point of view.

When I found out they had been dishonest, then everything I had previously considered to be due to just being good people and good friends became suspect, the motivation for everything they had done got called into question.

That’s it right there. The initial dishonesty. And in the case I related above, there was the fact that him “being nice”, which I attributed to him actually, you know, being nice, turned out to be his idea of earning brownie points that would pay off later. The fact that he did his best to make me look like a slut and a horrible person all over town because I *very gently* turned him down, well…that was just insult to injury. I liked him as a friend, but his friendliness was all an act to just get what he wanted out of me. And then when he didn’t, he tried to fuck me over.

Now, any man who offers me even the most token friendliness gets a more thorough scrutiny from me before I reciprocate. The ones who show real interest–like the guy last night who asked if I might want to take him “fishing” sometime, nudge nudge, wink wink, is going to get a warmer response from me than the idiot the other night who bugged me for over an hour to “just get a coffee with him sometime so I could vent about my kids and stuff”, because he made his interest known right away. He’s being honest with me. The other guy, well, I’m pretty sure what he wants, but no. Just no.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Welmer October 26, 2009 at 18:06

I’m trying to avoid males as friends altogether, kis. It’s useful to think they really are all like that and it will come up as an issue, sooner or later.

-Bhetti

That’s a bit unfair, Bhetti. I mean, don’t you know that guys who have female friends sometimes have to deal with uncomfortable, possessive behavior on their part? I’ve had to cut off female friends because of their hostility to my girlfriends a few times. And I’m talking real, palpable hostility, not just curt formality.

This is why I don’t have female friends, and don’t really want them. It’s also why working with women can be problematic. Women can be extremely possessive of men, even when they aren’t sleeping with the man in question.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
zed October 26, 2009 at 18:07

On the male side, he evaluates every woman sexually and automatically.

Not necessarily true. I’ve had many women who were never even on my radar to begin with get a 2nd look (and in a few cases, more) when they got in my face and let me know they were interested.

This stereotypic polarization of men and women into “designated initiators and designated asexual passive responders” is messing up a lot of people and their chances at relationships.

Kis is well aware that some women are very active agents in making relationships happen. The biggest problem we have today is that they can always dodge back and hide behind the Feminine Mystique and make the guy take the fall for what may have happened entirely due to her initiation.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Zammo October 26, 2009 at 18:08

That’s it right there. The initial dishonesty.

Perhaps the word is finally getting out to guys… but still moms tell sons “be yourself and be nice and you will get the girl”. Mom lies.

Hell, the online dating services are still full of women claiming they want a “nice guy”. These women are lying.

So, we still have NiceGuys(tm) running around who made the tragic mistake of actually listening to women and acting on their words. They should have been watching the actions of women and responding accordingly.

Tell ya what, Kis… when women are actually honest about what they want in a man, then I will predict the end of the NiceGuys(tm) phenomenon.

It’s not initial dishonesty, it’s guys who made the mistake of listening to women.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
kis October 26, 2009 at 18:08

No, that was good of female competitiveness telling you to outdo the next female. In the same way that modern women like to show off to other women how much they protect their children from germs, physical punishment, and buying children overpriced designer clothes that they will outgrow in a few months time.

Hah! I read an article that says keeping kids in a sterile environment hampers the development of their immune systems. Let’s just say my kids have very robust immune systems. Both of the older ones just came down with swine flu–my son on Wednesday and my daughter on Saturday. I’d have sent them both to school this morning, if they weren’t probably still shedding viruses. Two days each of being what I’d call sick, and they were back to normal.

So I don’t keep a messy house because I’m lazy–I’m doing it for my kids.

As for the designer clothes, I sent my firstborn into the store to pick out a pair of sneakers. He picked the $14 ones. No joke. Up until a few years ago, they got thrift store clothes and gently used hand-me-downs. They know the value of a buck (a buck) and the value of a designer label (zilch).

As for physical punishment–well, the older two are pretty much past that stage, but I’ve been known to smack a bottom or two.

The pressures on me were all on the time/energy/effort end of things, the being pulled in too many directions at once, and that’s a direct result of feminism telling me I should be able to have and do it all, abetted by my ex’s reluctance to live up to his side of things.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Hope October 26, 2009 at 18:13

I wrote something a while back titled “Let’s not be friends.” I think the ladder theory is flawed because I have tended to fall for my close friends rather than some stranger. Right now, in a committed relationship, I have no male friends and some possible female friends, and I vastly prefer talking to other women than to other men.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
zed October 26, 2009 at 18:14

Women can be extremely possessive of men, even when they aren’t sleeping with the man in question.

The good news is that women like Bhetti will never call you in the middle of the night and ask you to come somewhere and rescue them because they have a flat tire or a dead battery.

Given the fact that I have felt far more used and taken advantage of by my so-called female “friends” than I ever have by my male friends, I think Bhetti’s position is to men’s advantage.

Sometime I really have to get around to telling the story of the ex-wife of a buddy of mine, who had remarrried and was then cheating on her current husband with her ex-husband (my buddy), sending me a check for airfare so I could fly out to California and watch her “dance naked.”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
zed October 26, 2009 at 18:16

abetted by my ex’s reluctance to live up to his side of things.

Which was also probably mostly due to feminism. Remember that he had been told most of his adult life that you needed him like a fish needed a bicycle – i.e. not at all.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
kis October 26, 2009 at 18:24

On the other hand, there’s a guy in town who’s been trying to get into my pants for months (he’s weird, but I get along with him okay–which I have to for work, but he’s still…really weird), who offered to put my dog down when she was dying and the road to the vet’s office was snowed in.

“She can go out in the woods with us, and I’ll just give her one shot to the back of the head. She won’t even feel a thing.”

All I could think was, “Yeah, I really need to be alone and emotionally devastated in the middle of the forest with a guy I who’s trying to get into my pants and who I don’t want anywhere near said pants. No thanks.”

I politely declined. If he hadn’t made his sexual interest known to me–and especially if I hadn’t gone through the NiceGuy brouhaha before–well, it would have been an uncomfortable situation at best.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Hope October 26, 2009 at 18:29

I wrote something a while back titled Let’s not be friends. I find that instead of the ladder theory’s idea that once a guy is on the friends ladder he is “stuck there,” I tended to become romantically entangled with my close male friends. I always went for the good and nice guys who listened and were empathic, including my fiance.

Right now I have zero male friends, because I do not want to jeopardize my relationship for anything. I prefer the company of other females and their friendships, because there is no danger of attraction there on either side. On another note, I’ve actually never had a guy pretend to be a good friend to get into my pants, because I was always very upfront with what I sought: love. Men seemed to respect that and left me alone if they had only sexual intentions.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Doug1 October 26, 2009 at 18:31

kis

Now, any man who offers me even the most token friendliness gets a more thorough scrutiny from me before I reciprocate. The ones who show real interest–like the guy last night who asked if I might want to take him “fishing” sometime, nudge nudge, wink wink, is going to get a warmer response from me than the idiot the other night who bugged me for over an hour to “just get a coffee with him sometime so I could vent about my kids and stuff”, because he made his interest known right away. He’s being honest with me. The other guy, well, I’m pretty sure what he wants, but no. Just no.

You’re attributing to a difference in honesty what is probably much more a difference in confidence in their respective sexual attractivenss to women. Let’s leave how handsome by the by. It doesn’t really matter than much unless it’s extreme in either direction. yeah I’m talking about the qualities of game and alphaness. I’m not saying the honesty wasn’t also a factor but I wouldn’t necessarily assume from what you said that the fishing guy was more honest in other areas than the LJBF guy. More alpha is the more overall accurate way to look at it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Chic Noir October 26, 2009 at 18:34

Welmer Women can be extremely possessive of men, even when they aren’t sleeping with the man in question.
Yes, I thought that as a man you would enjoy this to an extent. Sometimes it’s because we want to protect you.

I’ve had to cut off female friends because of their hostility to my girlfriends a few times.

Remember how I said that for the most part, women know if they like someone(of either gender) within 30 seconds.
Your female friends may feel that something isn’t “right” about your girlfriend.
On the otherhand, your female friends may resent the time and attention that you give to your girlfriend.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Chic Noir October 26, 2009 at 18:39

Bhetti I’m trying to avoid males as friends altogether, kis.

I will beg you to reconsider Bhetti MD. Male friend or two are good to have.

I like having friends of both genders but the bulk of my friends are female. When not trying to hump you, men can make good friends. They can also give you advice on other men and aren’t as sensitive as females. At times, it can feel like I’m walking on egg shells when I’m around other women. Even in the e-world

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
kis October 26, 2009 at 18:40

Kis is well aware that some women are very active agents in making relationships happen.

I know there are some women who take terrible advantage of NiceGuys’ surface niceness, when in fact, they know that said NiceGuy wants more. And that’s just…mean and small and nasty. Then again, there are NiceGuys who just do not take “not interested” for an answer.

Which was also probably mostly due to feminism. Remember that he had been told most of his adult life that you needed him like a fish needed a bicycle – i.e. not at all.

He might not have bought into that if I hadn’t been quite so good at coping. If I’d quit my job right at the start because it was “all too much.” But who knows? Maybe it was destined to fail. But feminism telling me I should be able to manage it all, while telling him he was superfluous…self-fulfilling prophesy.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Bhetti October 26, 2009 at 18:42

Welmer: I wouldn’t know the experiences men generally tend to have here, no. I’m not sure if I meant to imply women didn’t do it as well; I was talking to what was relevant to me on a personal perspective. It does even further feed into the principle of no male/female friendship is valid and useful as a rule. The genders have many strong feelings bases on their sexuality and while superficial socialising is fine, close friendship is asking for trouble.

Of course, what’s life without a bit of trouble? It’s useful to know the rule well, to decide when to break it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Chic Noir October 26, 2009 at 18:46

kris As for the designer clothes, I sent my firstborn into the store to pick out a pair of sneakers. He picked the $14 ones.

The innocence of a child. He picked out what caught his eye. No designer labels or messages from the sheeple telling him to buy the inferior but more expensive label.

The three example I provided weren’t about you btw. That was just some of the random women2woman BS .

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
kis October 26, 2009 at 18:57

The innocence of a child. He picked out what caught his eye. No designer labels or messages from the sheeple telling him to buy the inferior but more expensive label.

Actually, he’s fifteen. I asked him why he picked them. He said it was a combination of price vs quality. They weren’t as cheap as the $10 ones, but they didn’t look like they’d fall apart in a month. Now that’s my boy.

But yes, I get what you were saying. The modern mindset has put motherhood on this bizarre plane of existence where all that matters is how stylishly your kid is dressed, how quickly they can read, how nicely their rooms are decorated, and how many extracurricular activities you can force them to juggle before their little heads go all explody. “What?! You don’t have your daughter enrolled in jazz, tap, ballet, soccer, co ed hockey, girl guides, piano lessons AND tai chi? What kind of mother are you???”

I call bullshit on just about all of it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Black&German October 26, 2009 at 19:04

Hope,

I like your post. My husband was also one of my “guy friends” before we started dating. I’ve also had to cut all of my male friends out of my life. I miss the guys, though. But priorities change…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Chuck October 26, 2009 at 19:04

I thought up one more thing to add to Ladder Theory. Guys rarely call girls up just to hang out whereas girls will call guys to hang out all the time. Guys don’t call them up because we don’t really care to be friends with women. We can be acquintances or friends-in-a-large-mixed-group, but we won’t be buddies. We can’t really have a lot of fun just hanging out with you. That’s what guy friends are for.

Girls – on the other hand – can drag a guy along to Chipotle or the mall and be content. They enjoy the company and they enjoy talking about themselves.

The ratio of platonic girl-calling-guy to guy-calling-girl is at least 10 to 1. I’m sure there are scientific studies laying around confirming this hypothesis.

One further point, women can put guys on their “Real” ladder even if they just consider them friends. The thing about the “Real” ladder is that it can have both facets to a relationship. The girl can view the guy as a friend but also a possible sex partner. The “Friend” ladder is only for friends. There is no intention or an iota of possibiliy for him to change ladders. Yes it can happen, but its rare. Most men who a chick considers her friend are merely men in limbo at the lower eschelons of the “Real” ladder.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
zed October 26, 2009 at 19:06

Male friend or two are good to have.

Yes, women seem to find us really handy to have around when they need some heavy furniture moved, or they need an emotional tampon to cry on his shoulder when she has just broken up with her “jerk” of a boyfriend.

If there is not some way for them to use the man at the moment, not so much.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Jack Donovan October 26, 2009 at 19:13

**Gay men have a ladder dichotomy similar to women’s.

How do you figure?

By all accounts homosexual men are highly visual in the way they evaluate partners and they are more sexually active and given to casual sex and promiscuity than straight men.

They have sex like straight men would if they didn’t have to negotiate with women about it. Homos don’t need game. They’re either attractive or they focus on getting men who are normally out of their league drunk enough (see ladder) to say what the hell.

I also know quite a few homosexual men who regularly and very casually have sex with guys on their “friends” list. They joke about it after and often do it again maybe moths later after a few drinks.

The only place where that statement makes sense is in the straight/homo friendship category. My developed statement on this here…

http://www.jack-donovan.com/androphilia/essays/why-i-treat-straight-men-like-married-women/

I can and do put straight men in the “friend” box and have normal guy friendships with them because it is the right thing to do. It’s a matter of honor and self-discipline. The rationale being that if a guy is actually my friend I am not trying to “lure” him over, because I want what’s best for him, and crossing that line unleashes an avalanche of bullshit he’d have to wade through for the rest of his life. For that reason, I treat my straight friends as if they are completely unavailable. To get graphic, they are not even allowed in the spank tank. Completely off limits, or normal male camaraderie dynamics break down.

But if one of them came to me…well, then, my normal ladder rules would apply.

But as far as other known homos go, I think one ladder theory applies. Levels of attractiveness and drunkenness. I’ve hung out at the top of the ladder and gotten drunk enough to fall almost the whole way to the bottom. YIKES.

Homosexual men, very much like other men, are good at separating sex-for-pleasure from sex-for-love.

Homos often get lumped in with women–probably because some of them try so damn hard to imitate women–but the experience is different and there are different dynamics going on. Apples and oranges.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Jack Donovan October 26, 2009 at 19:15

I thought up one more thing to add to Ladder Theory. Guys rarely call girls up just to hang out whereas girls will call guys to hang out all the time. Guys don’t call them up because we don’t really care to be friends with women. We can be acquaintances or friends-in-a-large-mixed-group, but we won’t be buddies. We can’t really have a lot of fun just hanging out with you. That’s what guy friends are for.

Girls – on the other hand – can drag a guy along to Chipotle or the mall and be content. They enjoy the company and they enjoy talking about themselves.

True words, Chuck.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Chic Noir October 26, 2009 at 19:22

zed

Yes, women seem to find us really handy to have around when they need some heavy furniture moved, or they need an emotional tampon to cry on his shoulder when she has just broken up with her “jerk” of a boyfriend.

Aw you’re making me seem evil and I’m not.

Question… What are/how are you friendships with your fellow males? What do you bond over with your male friends?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Chic Noir October 26, 2009 at 19:25

@chuck, forgive me if this is a stupid question but what is so bad about hanging out with women? I see groups of men in restaurants and the mall, of course they are chasing tail but they are hanging out in the same places.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jack Donovan October 26, 2009 at 19:28

Question… What are/how are you friendships with your fellow males? What do you bond over with your male friends?

According to Lionel Tiger, who originated the term “male bonding,” the answer is “aggression.”

If find that to be mostly true-ish, especially depending on how far you want to extend the definition of “aggression.”

Most of the bonding taking place here for instance is probably taking place while aggressing against feminists and other outsider “enemies.” Also, bonding over shared interests, experiences and mutual respect for one another’s skills (writing/storytelling/arguing)

Often really good male bonds are formed while accomplishing or somehow symbolically fighting something. It could be an engine or a Sisyphean task or an opponent.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
zed October 26, 2009 at 19:30

Aw you’re making me seem evil and I’m not.

And I’m 9 feet tall and a stunning shade of chartreuse, CN. ;)

I know nothing about you, so I cannot say whether you are evil or not. I’m simply going by my own past experience. And, I take no statement made on the web as truth from on high – it’s all just words on a screen and I can claim anything I want to, and so can anyone else.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
epiclolz October 26, 2009 at 19:41

I think there needs to be a distinction between ‘friends’ and ‘Friends’ here.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Chuck October 26, 2009 at 19:46

Jack:

“How do you figure?”

Truthfully, I just used anecdotal evidence from gay friends I’ve had in the past. I’ve been friends with many gay guys who hung out with another gay guy with no sexual attraction involved. Perhaps they were lying when they said they only viewed them as friends, I don’t know. Perhaps its also a matter of “like staying with like”. But at least gay men have much in common making it more likely that they could be platonic friends than men and women who have nothing in common.

As I mentioned before, the mismatched ladders gives credence to the observation that women seek gay men for friendship. They don’t have to deal with ladder jumping or uncertainty of ladder status.

Chic Noir:

“but what is so bad about hanging out with women?”

Nothing at all. But much more often, its the case that the men hang out with the women in hopes of scoring at some future point whereas that doesn’t even enter the woman’s mind.

If sex weren’t a possibility – even a far-fetched one – men would almost completely stop hanging out with women. Maybe I’m talking out of my ass on this one, but in “olden days” there were Men’s Clubs and women’s social circles. There were two different spheres of social life. Also, there was very little casual sexual activity and little possibility that a woman would let a “friend” sleep with her in the first place. Since casual sex entered the picture, deluded men (including myself) have hoped for something more out of a relationship with a woman.

So the fact that male/female “friendship” would cease if casual sex were not a possibility shows that men don’t really want to be friends with women.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Chic Noir October 26, 2009 at 19:47

thanks jack . ok zed

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
piercedhead October 26, 2009 at 19:47

One of the worst aspects of a man having female friends is that he gets told things that can seriously compromise him – things he probably didn’t want to know in the first place. Not all knowledge is power, as every politician knows.

There are also too many no-go zones as far as conversation goes. Having women for friends is about as practical as wearing army boots when running a marathon. Men should stick with men if it’s conversation and honesty company they want – we’re more likely to share similar outlooks, understand where the other is coming from and the possibility of the friendship being a failed sexual thing isn’t there.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jack Donovan October 26, 2009 at 20:18

Chuck –

As I mentioned before, the mismatched ladders gives credence to the observation that women seek gay men for friendship. They don’t have to deal with ladder jumping or uncertainty of ladder status.

Or female competition. This part above is definitely true.

I’ve been friends with many gay guys who hung out with another gay guy with no sexual attraction involved. Perhaps they were lying when they said they only viewed them as friends, I don’t know.

Well, see that’s where the dynamic is kinda different for homos.

For straight women, according to ladder theory, hetero men are all in the same group until they are assigned to ladders, and most hetero men, as you’ve said, are placing the women somewhere on their own mating ladder.

For homos, I guess there are two ladders, but it’s complicated and less binary. Guys are able to be friends with other guys–or they should be. So sometimes they are having the regular guy friendship, and sometimes the ladder is involved. I’d say that with two known homos, one has rendered the other “virtually unfuckable,” as in, a “1-3.” That’s been the case with a few homo friends I’ve had who were “just friends.” If that isn’t the case, I think there’s still a chance there. I can think of a friend I had a couple of years ago who just had me a few rungs higher on his ladder than I had him.

A certain point, I guess if you’re really good friends it crosses over into that “brotherhood” area where sex would be creepy. Homosexuality is a weird, poorly understood thing. People want to make it black and white, because that makes things easier to understand, but it has always seemed to me that it is very, very gray and poorly understood even by its most enthusiastic practitioners.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
kis October 26, 2009 at 20:22
Yes, women seem to find us really handy to have around when they need some heavy furniture moved, or they need an emotional tampon to cry on his shoulder when she has just broken up with her “jerk” of a boyfriend.

Aw you’re making me seem evil and I’m not.

Question… What are/how are you friendships with your fellow males? What do you bond over with your male friends?

I think men are just as likely to call upon other men to help move heavy furniture or put the canopy on their truck or whatever as women are. It’s just that men don’t call upon women to reciprocate. And even if they did, I’m pretty sure what the answer would be most of the time when it comes to lugging heavy shit, anyway.

I’ve helped male friends move, given them rides when they’re stuck, helped fix their trucks, helped my boss (not the antisocial one, but the other one who’s a good friend) lug 100 50 lb bags of rice into the storeroom, etc. But most of them try to talk me out of it. “Kis, those are fucking heavy!” “Um, yeah, that’s why you shouldn’t have to lug all 100 of them yourself, dude.”

I suppose if I didn’t like doing physical stuff, I’d be bringing them pans of apple crisp or casseroles when they’re sick, looking after their dogs when they’re on vacation, hemming their pants for them or whatever. Oh wait, I do those things too!

Women can be good friends. They often aren’t, but then, the ones who aren’t going to be a good friend to a man probably aren’t going to be a good one to me, either.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
zed October 26, 2009 at 20:27

I’ve helped male friends move, given them rides when they’re stuck, helped fix their trucks, helped my boss (not the antisocial one, but the other one who’s a good friend) lug 100 50 lb bags of rice into the storeroom, etc

But, we know that you aren’t really a woman, kis. You cannot use yourself as an example. You may have female plumbing, but the rest of your entire life seems to be about bucking the female role.

You’re really a guy.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
someone October 26, 2009 at 20:35

Novaseeker: “*Can* be, yes. Is it common to have friendships between men and women where the man has absolutely zero, zilch, nada, rien, attraction to the woman? Nope. It happens, but it’s not common.”

What does that have to do with anything? Being just friends and finding the other person attractive are not mutually exclusive.

Arbitrary: “Something is objectively wrong if it is wrong, independent of perspective.”

Which applies to what I said.

“For the ladder theory to be objectively wrong, you would need to show that no person thinks this way–a task I hope you will admit is impossible.”

That’s not how it works. There are any number of people in the world who deny even the most objective of facts.

“Regardless of your word choice, your “evidence” itself is lacking.”

You are completely out to lunch if you think men and women being friends isn’t a mundane occurence.

JohnnyBravo: “This will probably hurt you and your Starbucks crew of metrosexual liberal arts majors a bit,”

It’ll hurt your child-molesting KKK Nazi friends even more!

Yes, I can make shit up too.

“but the truth (perhaps the objective truth, even?) is that nothing in the field of social science can ever be objective.”

Except it’s a plainly obvious fact that the world is full of men and women who are just friends.

“So unless you know what “objective” means, and I don’t mean in the modern sense (ie anything regarded as true by you or whoever uses that word the way you did must be objectively true, rendering all opposing viewpoints objectively wrong), please learn another language and shit that one up. I think English words have lost enough meaning by being regurgitated by monosyllabic mongoloids.”

Go look at a dictionary and stop projecting your language issues on other people.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
lovelysexybeauty October 26, 2009 at 20:54

@Jack Donovan “Often really good male bonds are formed while accomplishing or somehow symbolically fighting something. It could be an engine or a Sisyphean task or an opponent.”‘

That’s a great insight. It seems like men like to *do* things together when they hang out, whether it’s play basketball, talk shop (work stuff), play video games, find something specific at the mall, or whatnot. During that I guess men start to share or talk, if at all.

Also, I am another one who doesn’t have good platonic guy friends (close BFF types), and don’t necessarily try to. Casual friends from school, work, and volunteerism, sure, occassionally with some “innocent” flirteee flirtee to pass the time (heehee – if they don’t ask me out then it’s just fun practice right?). I share, get advice, and get “protection” more from male family members – friends ladder forever only, k! I’ve always have wondered if I’m missing out by not having close guy buds, but my life doesn’t feel empty so it’s all good I suppose.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
kis October 26, 2009 at 21:14

But, we know that you aren’t really a woman, kis. You cannot use yourself as an example. You may have female plumbing, but the rest of your entire life seems to be about bucking the female role.

You’re really a guy.

The point is, guys never expected me to reciprocate with “guy things”. I did, but they didn’t ask.

But it’s not uncommon for a male friend to ask me if I’d sew him some curtains, or help him pick out a gift for his wife or daughter, or pick him up a dress shirt when I was heading into the city, or look after his dog while he’s away. Guy friends have asked me to babysit their kids when they’re in a bind, or give them rides to and from school. They’ve asked me to help pick out paint colors, called me for recipes to pass on to their wives, and any number of other “girl things”. I even had one ask if I’d give his wife cooking lessons (and no, he wasn’t kidding, she didn’t know one end of a saucepan from the other).

But I don’t know that men feel comfortable asking women friends to even do those things. Men don’t like to ask for shit they need. They certainly don’t like to ask women for them.

I mean, did you ever call one of those women you moved heavy furniture for and say “Hey, Jen, I’m sick as a dog. I can hardly get my ass off the couch. Do you think you could pick me up some NyQuil and a box of Kleenexes and bring them by?” Would you feel as comfortable doing that as you would have calling a male friend and saying, “Dude, you think you could swing by in a bit and help me get the canopy off my truck?”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Arbitrary October 26, 2009 at 21:47

Someone, the reason you would have to show that no one thinks this way in order for it to be objectively wrong is not because it is impossible to deny an objective fact. People can deny that 1+1=2 all they want and it remains an objective truth. The reason you have to show that no one thinks this way in order for this to be objectively wrong is that this is itself an assessment of how people think. In order for it to be objectively wrong it’s negation must be correct from all perspectives. The ladder theory does not purport to be a perfect model of all human behavior under all circumstances; it might thus be characterized by claiming that some people behave this way (in fact, in order to be useful, it needs to claim that it is an effective model of the world, but the correct means of considering whether or not something is an effective model is to test it empirically–a process that can not result in an objective result in either direction). It’s negation is thus the claim that no people behave this way, and we arrive at my earlier response.

The only objective truth that people are capable of ascertaining with certainty is mathematics–this claim is itself circular, as “That which is objectively and provably true” is actually a reasonable functional definition of what mathematics is.

Regarding your dismissal of the latter part of my argument through attribution to me of a claim I did not make, I will say only this: the ladder theory admits an explanation for Platonic friendship between the sexes; the existence of such friendships is not itself an argument against ladder theory. For further explanation, consult the last third of my previous comment; if you are actually interested in convincing anyone of your correctness, you will need to rebut this claim directly.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
zed October 26, 2009 at 21:51

I mean, did you ever call one of those women you moved heavy furniture for and say “Hey, Jen, I’m sick as a dog. I can hardly get my ass off the couch. Do you think you could pick me up some NyQuil and a box of Kleenexes and bring them by?”

Yes, I have, but you are completely missing the point – probably half because you are Canadian and don’t have the unbelievable entitlement mentality of US women.

I have also been woken up by a phone call at 1:30 am from a “friend” who had been out drinking and left her lights on while she closed down the bar. When her car wouldn’t start, she called me in the middle of a cold snowy night to come give her a jump start. I told her that I would call an emergency 24 hour road service for her (thinking that she had called me because she knew my number and didn’t have a phone book) but she said “no, I don’t want to spend the money.” Because she “didn’t want to spend the money”, she felt fine asking me to drag myself out of bed on a cold, snowy/rainy night to give her a jump start. I sure as hell would not do that to a friend, male or female.

Another so-called “friend” asked me to help her move, and I had a truck so I was doubly valuable to her. She kind of stood in the doorway and directed all her “friends” as they carried stuff out. I came by with a box with some oriental bowls in it. Nothing fancy, the kind of stuff you can buy cheap in any oriental grocery. She said “Set them over there, I don’t want them and am going to get rid of them.” “Oh” I said, if you don’t want them, I could use them.” “OK, I’ll sell them to you for $10.” She was using my truck for free, I was carrying a bunch of heavy furniture and boxes out of her place, for free, and she wanted to charge me as much for some used junk dinnerware as it would have cost me a dozen places in town – brand new.

That’s what I am talking about.

Just as you go on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on about your husband, believe it or not, kis, there are a few women in the world who are not exactly like you and who are completely selfish, self-centered, shits.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
kis October 26, 2009 at 22:03

Just as you go on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on about your husband, believe it or not, kis, there are a few women in the world who are not exactly like you and who are completely selfish, self-centered, shits.

LOL. Yeah, I’m aware that some women aren’t like me. :P I’ve probably been living in a small Canadian town for too long, as well. I’ve said before that I’m never ever ever ever moving back to the city or the burbs because there’s no community cohesion there at all. Plus, if I’d left my lights on while I closed down the bar, I’d just walk home. It’s only a few blocks, and the most dangerous thing I’d be facing walking alone is a bear, lol.

And yeah, I think Canadian women are probably not as entitled as American women are. I do get what you’re saying. The attitudes you’re describing would seem alien to me if I didn’t have my flaky not-a-doctor sister as an example. But if I can get myself in the mindset that a considerable portion of the female population in the US act like her, well, yeah, I get your point. Of course, she’s like that with men AND women. She’s an equalist at heart, so long as she’s more equal than everyone else.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jack Donovan October 26, 2009 at 22:05

Another so-called “friend” asked me to help her move, and I had a truck so I was doubly valuable to her. She kind of stood in the doorway and directed all her “friends” as they carried stuff out.

I once knew a woman who kept leaving and going back to her husband. She openly told everyone he was a pussy and an awful lay, and expected any man she knew to drop everything at the chance to help her move. She moved in and out I think 3 times in the space of a year. She should really be studied, because she’s the perfect illustration of everything men complain about here. Excessively flirty, fake boobs, blonde, thinks she’s a tough girl, thinks she’s smart, won’t lift a finger, avoids work at all costs, cries at work, pops pills, and asks the men she works with to pee sitting down for her convenience. (Thank god, they’ve all laughed at her and refused. She replies, “but my husband does…”)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
zed October 26, 2009 at 22:15

if I can get myself in the mindset that a considerable portion of the female population in the US act like her, well, yeah, I get your point.

Don’t strain yourself.

Of course, she’s like that with men AND women. She’s an equalist at heart, so long as she’s more equal than everyone else.

Oh, I’m sure that these women are just as shitty to other women. For some reason though, the “sisterhood” mentality makes them put up with it as long as they are burning men just as badly as they are burning other women.

That is part of the generalized withdrawal from women strategy that some men are following. When women only have other women around them to burn, and men are conspicuously absent, it will get kind of hard to blame all this on us.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
kis October 26, 2009 at 22:45

Don’t strain yourself.

Oh, poo on you, Zed. :P

I know a few women like you’re talking about. But they aren’t “friend” material, even the ones I wouldn’t mind getting into their pants for a night. No lay is worth putting up with that shit.

What I don’t understand is the backing off from friendships with women on the grounds that women can be like that–or even that most women are like that. I mean, you can usually tell within five minutes of talking to one of those bitches that they’re self-centered and amoral. And it helps that they can almost never maintain friendships with decent women, so they usually travel in herds–all of them with the same stripes.

Is it the boobs that blind you guys to what they’re really like? What? I mean, I like the boobs too, but I can still see what’s underneath them. Even the not too horrible ones, it takes maybe a few conversations, and I know what I’m dealing with.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Anakin Niceguy October 27, 2009 at 01:00

Of course, if you are friends with a woman and know about her thoughts, her emotion, her psyche, you have absolutely no “experience” women until such a time as you have sex with her. I am really saying that? No, but some, ahem, other people might.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
zed October 27, 2009 at 05:00

Is it the boobs that blind you guys to what they’re really like?

I’m not even going to dignify that with an answer, kis. Eventually fighting the stereotypes becomes so tiresome that it just is no longer worth it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
someone October 27, 2009 at 05:43

Arbitrary: “words words words”

Fact: there are plenty of men and women who are just friends. Anyone who thinks otherwise is either insane or ignorant, as well as objectively wrong. It’s that simple.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Arbitrary October 27, 2009 at 08:28

Someone, ignoring your opponent’s arguments is ill advised in a forum where the intellectual impoverishment of doing so is clearly visible. If you can not or will not add anything further here, then I suggest that you stop repeating yourself while you still have at least one person who will do something other than entirely ignore your continued poorly executed efforts at trolling this forum.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
kis October 27, 2009 at 08:32

I’m not even going to dignify that with an answer, kis. Eventually fighting the stereotypes becomes so tiresome that it just is no longer worth it.

Okay, I was a little sarcastic. But I’m still curious. I mean, I’m not friends with any woman who would treat me that way, and the few friends I see treating treat men that way end up looking around and wondering where I went after a while.

I just wonder how some men can’t see the “special snowflakes” for what they are until after they get woken up at 1:30 AM, or are asked to pay $10 for shit that was going in the bin anyway, in the midst of doing a giant favor for a woman.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
zed October 27, 2009 at 08:43

I just wonder how some men can’t see the “special snowflakes” for what they are until after they get woken up at 1:30 AM, or are asked to pay $10 for shit that was going in the bin anyway, in the midst of doing a giant favor for a woman.

That was long ago in a galaxy far away, when I would still pretty much do anything for anyone just because that was the way I was raised. I’m talking about things that happened before you were born or shortly thereafter.

After many years of dealing with entitlement attitudes, however, and realizing that any sort of reciprocity never even crossed these women’s minds, I changed a lot my thinking.

These days, if one of the first things a woman talks about, or showcases in a face to face meeting, is her boobs, she gets put in the “bimbo” category and stays there.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jabherwochie October 27, 2009 at 09:04

“”””Hi Jabherwochie,

“It also makes perfect sense why females are turning to the bad boys during their prime years. It is about one trying to get in and one trying to stop them. IMO”

Could you elaborate. I’m confused as to what your getting at.

Well, I am a firm believer that females are still turning to men for protection. You can hear it in the words feminists say, “Not enough females are going to the police for their problems”. The police can’t take care of everything and women can’t be saying, “No” all day long.

A bad boy has a reputation of being an alpha. Females can easily use him as her excuse why she has to say, “No!” and many males won’t try on a female with a bad boy.

Soooo, what do you think of what I said?”””

Confirmed some of my fears. Makes me regret not being an asshole growing up, as I have a knack for fighting. Infuriates me that a women would give away her honor to some prick just so she can be safely off the market. Sounds like the lamest reason ever to reward someone for bad behaivor. Pisses me off that women have an issue with too much attention anyways, when many men get zero. Makes me think of famous people who bemoan the papparazzi, when normal people have real problems to worry about, and can’t lock themselves away in a mansion or fly away to a remote local to get away.

“OOh, all this guys won’t leave me alone! It’s so hard being irresistable! I know, I’ll go fuck Spike over there, then everyone will give me my space, cuz Spike will beat the shit out of them for me. Tee hee!”

Go wear a Burqa if you don’t want attention, you don’t have to reward douche-bags for their douchiness. You’ll know what being left alone feels like when you hit 40 anyways, and you’ll have plenty of time to enjoy it then.

Angry much? Why yes, I am. It comes and goes.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Novaseeker October 27, 2009 at 09:13

What does that have to do with anything? Being just friends and finding the other person attractive are not mutually exclusive.

The point is this: if a man is attracted to a woman and they get along well as friends, the only thing preventing that from becoming more than friends is the woman’s consent. That’s my point. Men in “friendships” with women are, typically, very open to converting such friendships to full-blown relationships if the woman would consent to do it, and are much less likely, generally, to form friendships with women to whom they are not attracted. The “male angle”, therefore, on these relationships is fundamentally different from the female angle, because men do not have two ladders like women do.

I think the main reason why there are relatively few male/female friendships is because most men have a few of them when they are younger and learn, the hard way, about the two female ladders, and decide that it is not generally worth being friends with women with whom they are not romantically involved as well as a result of that.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
someone October 27, 2009 at 09:31

Arbitrary: “Someone, ignoring your opponent’s arguments”

You have no arguments to make. The facts, which are on my side, are plain as day. There is no possible way for you to argue that men and women cannot be friends.

“…your continued poorly executed efforts at trolling this forum.”

Just stop. You’re embarrasing yourself.

Novaseeker: “Men in “friendships” with women are, typically, very open to converting such friendships to full-blown relationships if the woman would consent to do it, and are much less likely, generally, to form friendships with women to whom they are not attracted.”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Arbitrary October 27, 2009 at 09:53

Someone, it is you who have embarrassed yourself. I never claimed that men and women cannot be friends. I continue to not claim that. Your apparent unwillingness to take even the most cursory glances at what the person you are arguing with actually said has left you trapped in a repetitive loop of arguing with no one but yourself–a behavior I will point out to any others foolish enough to attempt to engage you in any sort of meaningful discussion in the future.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Gryphon MacThoy October 27, 2009 at 10:05

A few problems:
1. Where do other men land on a heterosexual man’s ladder? Ah, so there IS another ladder. This just indicates that the Friend’s ladder can’t have women on it. Perhaps for some, this is true.
2. SOME homosexual men have ladder arrangements similar to women. Some do not. In fact, some women have ladders closer to your heterosexual man’s ladder. But then, what about lesbians?

Essentially, I find this sort of analogy fails to comprehend the fluidity of real social dynamics as experienced by a wide range of people. It also seems to suggest that such static dynamics as posited here are static. Again, perhaps for some this is true. I suppose it feels good to describe the world in little buckets. Or chutes and ladders.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Chuck October 27, 2009 at 10:23

Anakin:

Of course, if you are friends with a woman and know about her thoughts, her emotion, her psyche, you have absolutely no “experience” women until such a time as you have sex with her. I am really saying that? No, but some, ahem, other people might.

There is experience with women then there’s experience with women. Sex completely changes any relationship. The expectations and commitment changes.

It is possible to know women in the platonic sense. Yes. But how can a man relate that limited knowledge to other men? The other men likely aren’t seeking friendship with a woman. They don’t come up to the platonic man and say “Hey, what are your tips on becoming friends with this woman?” Rather, they want something more intimate. Female friendship is abundant if a guy is looking for that; intimacy is more scarce.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jabherwochie October 27, 2009 at 10:37

Okay. Heres the thing. Yes, some guys and girls can be just friends, but, it is extremely rare for that friendship to endure long term, just as many same sex friendships have a hard time enduring long term, but, as far as long enduring, lifetime friendships go, I have never seen one between a man and a women. I’m sure they exist. So do people born with both genitalia. But that has to say something right? How many friendships are exploratory by their nature, a developmental part of growing up, that neither stand the test of time or serious hardship, either male/male or female/male or female/female. Now how many life long friendships, through thick and thin exist? For most of us, one or two if we’re lucky (not counting family). And how many of those are opposite sex friendships. Near zero.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jabherwochie October 27, 2009 at 10:39

Oh yeah. Swisssh! Nothing but net! Team logic locks the game down…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
zed October 27, 2009 at 10:46

Men in “friendships” with women are, typically, very open to converting such friendships to full-blown relationships if the woman would consent to do it, and are much less likely, generally, to form friendships with women to whom they are not attracted. The “male angle”, therefore, on these relationships is fundamentally different from the female angle, because men do not have two ladders like women do.

I think the main reason why there are relatively few male/female friendships is because most men have a few of them when they are younger and learn, the hard way, about the two female ladders, and decide that it is not generally worth being friends with women with whom they are not romantically involved as well as a result of that.

I don’t really buy all this, because it is definitely not the way I operate. Friends are friends and relationships are relationships and there isn’t that much overlap between them for me.

However, if this really is the way most guys operate, that explains a lot of the unpleasantness I have experienced trying to have authentic friendships with women.

First of all, not all women are on my “ladder.” As someone above said, it is a general but limited model for understanding some of the dynamics of male/female relationships. It explains some things, but it is not a universal blueprint that everyone follows.

Every “relationship” comes with a load of drama, baggage, and expectations. I tend to evaluate those 3 things before I even consider how a woman looks. Once I pass the go/no-go point of assessing that the load of drama, baggage, and expectations would likely fall within tolerable limits, then I start to evaluate her attractiveness to me relative to the load she represents. If she doesn’t make the cut, she isn’t on the ladder at all.

The reason I have found friendships with women so problematic is this “conversion” option so many men seem to be offering women. I’ve seen a lot of women treat this as a sort of blank IOU that they think they have been given to cash any time they choose – like shortly after a particularly nasty breakup. It is like most men will give a woman to whom they are attracted a standing offer for a relationship which she can leave on the table until she decides to cash it.

I won’t spend any time on “hold.” Any offer I make expires 30 seconds after it has been issued if not accepted. The bus pulls out of the station whether she is on it or not.

What I don’t like about trying to have genuine friendships with women is that in virtually all the ones I have had the woman wanted to treat it as a sort of “courtship lite”, and pulled all the same sort of “wife/girlfriend drama” that she would have pulled if she really was a wife or GF.

One of my college roomates, who I see about once every 3-4 years summed it up perfectly when he left me a voice message and I finally got around to calling him back about 14 months later. I apologized for taking so long to get back to him and he just laughed and said “We’re guys. When a woman says she’ll call you, she means within 4 hours. When a guy says he’ll call you, it means sometime before one of us dies.”

I’ve found that women seldom understand that there is a difference between grrl friends and guy friends. My friendships with men are not constantly decomposing and do not require constant maintenance. If I call a guy and he is in a shitty mood, I’ve never had one feel the need to punish me for it.

The women friends I have had have seemed to want all the prerogatives of being a girlfriend, without the nasty detail of sex.

(and, yes, kis, I know you are totally different in a dozen different ways. Please spare us your self-indulgent drivel – I am talking about my experiences here which you know nothing about and to which your own experience could not possibly be more irrelevant.)

But, the bottom line was that all the drama wouldn’t have been worth putting up with even with sex, so putting up with it without sex was out of the question.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Arbitrary October 27, 2009 at 10:48

Gryphon, you are fundamentally misrepresenting the goals of ladder theory. It is purely interested in describing the behavior of most heterosexual men and women in male-female relationships. It neither claims to be completely universal, nor to provide any explanatory power at all regarding the behaviors of non-heterosexuals or the behaviors in same-sex interactions (if you insist on trying to generalize to other interactions, there are sometimes somewhat reasonable extensions; for example, between heterosexual males, it would be more accurate to say that they are automatically at the bottom of the one ladder–the same place that ladder theory would indicate that you could find suitable candidates for a female platonic friend of the male).

Ladder theory is a pop-psychological model intended to help people better predict and understand the behavior of others–you may choose to discard it if you find it to be of insufficient predictive accuracy (by comparison to some other model). However, to say that it “fails to comprehend the fluidity of real social dynamics” is not itself an argument against the theory any more than one would discard ideal gas behavior because it “fails to comprehend the fluidity” of the dynamics of actual gases (except insofar as to provide corrective factors when higher precision predictions are required). Nor is it relevant whether it “feels good” to follow such a theory or not–all that matters is predictive power.

If you do not believe that this model is accurately predictive of social interactions, and wish to convince someone else of this fact, you will need to supply another model (the one you claim to be more accurate) and a repeatable experiment to verify its greater accuracy; the reason that people follow the ladder model (or some enhancement thereof) is because it more accurately explains the data that they have already collected, and has provided more accurate predictions of future behaviors (that is, behaviors occurring after the predictions, but before now) in their interactions. Anything else is not an argument that the model should be discarded; merely an argument that you don’t like the model.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
someone October 27, 2009 at 10:57

Arbitrary: “I never claimed that men and women cannot be friends. I continue to not claim that.”

Then what is your purpose here?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Arbitrary October 27, 2009 at 11:02

To explain why one’s answer to that question (whether or not there can be male-female Platonic friendships) is unrelated to one’s belief in ladder theory. Read my previous posts for further details.

Why are you here?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jabherwochie October 27, 2009 at 11:02

And then Zed ally-oops it to Arbitrary, who performs a 360 slam dunk at the buzzer!! The crowd goes wild. Team MRA wins!

Now all we need is a mascot.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
someone October 27, 2009 at 11:04

So yeah, you’re arguing for argument’s sake, presumably because you are bored.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jabherwochie October 27, 2009 at 11:05

Someone-

Try on this Skunk outfit. It will be the perfect mascot for your team, team sour grapes.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Arbitrary October 27, 2009 at 11:09

No, Someone, I’m arguing because you made a non-sequitur, then claimed that it showed ladder theory to be wrong on a level reserved for mathematical certainties. I continue to take no stance on the non-sequitur, but your argument is fundamentally and irrevocably flawed, and I want to protect people from reaching a self-damaging conclusion by listening to you without completely considering your words.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Jabherwochie October 27, 2009 at 11:40

And Arbitrary closes the night by signing the game winning b-ball and handing it off to a lucky young lad as he makes his way to the locker room to score with the other teams cheerleaders! Yaaaay!!

Too much? Okay, I’ll stop now.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Dave from Hawaii October 27, 2009 at 14:31

I think a real friendship with a member of the opposite sex is possible…but only under specific circumstances – being a member of a close-knit group involved in some kind of activity, and possibly co-workers as well…someone for which you have to interact on a frequent basis and get to know, trust and admire.

I have several female friends, but that is because I’ve trained martial arts with them for a long time, as well as been associated with them through a common circle of friends for an even longer period of time.

And every time one of them gets a new boyfriend, he will invariably come to our class to check out her “guy” friends.

One of my best friends is in fact a female, as I’ve known her for well over a decade. She’s trained martial arts with me all that time, and I was also friends with her ex-boyfriend, and now am also really good friends with her husband. She is a person of great character, does not have the entitlement mentality, and is thoughtful and giving and has proven her friendship to me (and I to her) many, many times. We have come to refer to each other as brother and sister. I wouldn’t hesitate to call her or her husband at 3:00 in the morning for a jump start…and I wouldn’t hesitate to get up and go give either of them a jump at 3:00am either. Few things are more valuable in this life than having true friends.

But for the most part, I think such friendships that are TRUE friendships between men and women are pretty rare indeed.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
kis October 27, 2009 at 14:37

(and, yes, kis, I know you are totally different in a dozen different ways. Please spare us your self-indulgent drivel – I am talking about my experiences here which you know nothing about and to which your own experience could not possibly be more irrelevant.)

Oh, pshaw, Zed. I was actually going to agree with you. Although I’d add that a some of the things you might attribute to a woman treating you like a boyfriend or husband–say, crying on your shoulder after a break-up, or calling in the middle of the night–are things she’d likely do to a girlfriend. I’ve gotten 3 AM sobbing phone calls from female friends before, and had to rescue a couple from bad situations.

But yeah, women often seem to feel no guilt getting what they need from a man on the mere suggestion that there might be a minute, infinitesimal, microscopic mote of a possibility she might one day in a galaxy far far away reciprocate with sex. That possibility, to some women, seems to be reciprocation enough.

It’s mean and underhanded.

Perhaps the problem I have when dealing with the NiceGuys is the same problem you had dealing with Friends Who Possess Vaginas–you deal honestly with people, and you judge them by the same yardstick. Dealing with manipulative people who conceal their true motivations is like trying to deal with aliens.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
zed October 27, 2009 at 15:34

Oh, pshaw, Zed. I was actually going to agree with you.

You often agree with me, kis. Unfortunately you bury that in with so many irrelevancies it takes a bit of excavating to find it. ;)

But yeah, women often seem to feel no guilt getting what they need from a man on the mere suggestion that there might be a minute, infinitesimal, microscopic mote of a possibility she might one day in a galaxy far far away reciprocate with sex. That possibility, to some women, seems to be reciprocation enough.

It’s mean and underhanded.

And, not to over use an already overused word, it really does make them whores – hinting at trading “sexual favors” for something they want. That is something which really does cheapen sex. There is also a fundamental dishonesty about it which I think cuts women off from the ability to have meaningful sexual experiences and relationships. A good roll in the hay should leave both people with a rosy glow on their cheeks and feeling on top of the world. If that isn’t enough reason for a person to do it, then they are using someone and using sex to manipulate them.

Like Dave from Hawaii said above, I think good friendships between men and women are possible, but as someone else also said I think this can only happen when the question of sex is totally off the table. That, among other things, makes it very rare.

I know that my guy friends hang out with me because they like hanging out with me, not because they have some ulterior motive in doing so. After having numerous female “friends” talk about “taking our friendship to the next level”, I no longer trust their motivations for entering into the friendship.

Perhaps the problem I have when dealing with the NiceGuys is the same problem you had dealing with Friends Who Possess Vaginas–you deal honestly with people, and you judge them by the same yardstick. Dealing with manipulative people who conceal their true motivations is like trying to deal with aliens.

Well said. Over the years I have had to learn the hard way that too much tolerance and forgiveness in a friendship can be destructive. There certain things which just are not done, and certain boundaries which just are not violated. It all boils down to fundamental respect, and if it does not exist in both directions in a friendship, along with trust, then that person is an acquaintance, not a friend.

I’ve had guy friends burn me as badly as some of the women, so it really isn’t a sex-specific thing. People are just getting very shallow and corrupt in general. I used to consider it none of my business if a buddy was having an affair with a married woman, but I learned that someone who cheats will cheat in any area of their lives and that includes in dealing with me. With friends like that, who needs enemas?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
kis October 27, 2009 at 16:22

And, not to over use an already overused word, it really does make them whores – hinting at trading “sexual favors” for something they want. That is something which really does cheapen sex.

Oh, it does. Not that that’s necessarily evil or anything, so long as both parties know what they’re in for. I mean, I’m all for legalized prostitution. I think it can be an honest business transaction. But there’s whore sex and there’s love sex. I keep trying to imagine a wife giving her man a roll in the hay and then holding out her hand and saying, “That’ll be $150.”

But I know some women who’ll give their husbands head and then say, “Honey, I’m going shoe shopping–taking your visa, ‘kay?” And the man, mired in a state of post-orgasmic bliss he’s not likely to experience again for a long while if he says no, just goes along with it. I tell these women it’s unethical. They just laugh and say, “No wonder you couldn’t get your husband to do anything you wanted.” Well, poo.

I don’t think being a shitty friend is gender-specific, either. I just think the shittiness is more complicated and potentially stinky when it’s a m/f friendship.

I used to consider it none of my business if a buddy was having an affair with a married woman, but I learned that someone who cheats will cheat in any area of their lives and that includes in dealing with me. With friends like that, who needs enemas?

Nah, with friends like that you don’t need enemas at all. All that getting cornholed really flushes out the system on its own.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Black&German October 27, 2009 at 16:42

I used to consider it none of my business if a buddy was having an affair with a married woman, but I learned that someone who cheats will cheat in any area of their lives and that includes in dealing with me. With friends like that, who needs enemas?

LOL. That was funny. Totally agree. It shows general soul rot.

But I know some women who’ll give their husbands head and then say, “Honey, I’m going shoe shopping–taking your visa, ‘kay?” And the man, mired in a state of post-orgasmic bliss he’s not likely to experience again for a long while if he says no, just goes along with it. I tell these women it’s unethical.

Wow. Some people are low. You’re supposed to have sex with your spouse because it’s part of the marriage covenant, brings pleasure, produces children, and helps you bond — not to manipulate them. And the “can’t get your husband to do anything you wanted comment” shows just how manipulative they really are.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
zed October 27, 2009 at 17:45

But I know some women who’ll give their husbands head and then say, “Honey, I’m going shoe shopping–taking your visa, ‘kay?” And the man, mired in a state of post-orgasmic bliss he’s not likely to experience again for a long while if he says no, just goes along with it.

I have seen enough of this, and a lot sicker shit, to have lost all ability to trust a woman’s expression of sexual interest. My automatic reaction now is “She’s just doing this in order to use my reaction to jerk me around.”

I consider it quite sad because something has been lost between men and women which can be quite rewarding for both.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
someone October 27, 2009 at 20:06

Arbitrary: “No, Someone, I’m arguing because you made a non-sequitur, then claimed that it showed ladder theory to be wrong on a level reserved for mathematical certainties.”

The only thing I said was that it’s objectively wrong to claim that men and women can’t be friends. I didn’t say anything about ladder theory. I also didn’t present any non-sequiturs.

“I continue to take no stance on the non-sequitur, but your argument is fundamentally and irrevocably flawed, and I want to protect people from reaching a self-damaging conclusion by listening to you without completely considering your words.”

Yes, because making simple factual statements is “flawed.” Men and women can be friends and there is absolutely nothing you can say or do to argue against that. Build a bridge and get over it.

Jabherwochie: “And Arbitrary closes the night by signing the game winning b-ball and handing it off to a lucky young lad as he makes his way to the locker room to score with the other teams cheerleaders! Yaaaay!!”

Forum cheerleading is one of the most pathetic and laughable things that can occur on the Internet.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Arbitrary October 27, 2009 at 21:37

Your insistence that men and women can be friends is a non-sequitur as part of your attempt to dispute the claim that “‘Friendship’ is a foreign term for a man’s ladder.” The word foreign here means “unrelated to”, not, as you seem to believe, “preventative of”.

You further persist in behaving as if I believe that this claim (that men and women can be friends) is false, despite my clear and unequivocal statement to the contrary, as well as my initial explanation of why it can remain true within the scope of ladder theory.

In short, you claimed a line from the initial article–one of some relevance to the understanding of ladder theory–was “objectively wrong”, and have now lied about doing so. I suppose the one point I should here concede is this; I incorrectly ordered what you said: I claimed that you made the non-sequitur first and then claimed it invalidated ladder theory; the correct order was that you claimed that a fundamental aspect of ladder theory was “objectively wrong”, and only then offered the non-sequitur as an explanation. If you feel that this mis-characterization is at all relevant, I invite you to further press the issue.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
someone October 28, 2009 at 06:31

Arbitrary: “Your insistence that men and women can be friends is a non-sequitur as part of your attempt to dispute the claim that “‘Friendship’ is a foreign term for a man’s ladder.” The word foreign here means “unrelated to”, not, as you seem to believe, “preventative of”.”

I don’t give a shit about the ladder theory. Again, I am simply saying that men and women can be friends. How does this not compute for you?

“You further persist in behaving as if I believe that this claim (that men and women can be friends) is false, despite my clear and unequivocal statement to the contrary, as well as my initial explanation of why it can remain true within the scope of ladder theory.”

Then what the fuck are you arguing about?

“In short, you claimed a line from the initial article–one of some relevance to the understanding of ladder theory–was “objectively wrong”, and have now lied about doing so.”

You are delusional.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Arbitrary October 28, 2009 at 08:38

I am arguing about your very first comment above, the third comment made on the article. It states, in its entirety:

“Friendship” is a foreign term for a man’s ladder.”

This is objectively wrong.

The above quote, in which you claimed a fundamental aspect of ladder theory to be objectively wrong, has nothing to do with the question of whether or not men and women can be friends. Yet when JohnnyBravo questioned your use of the word “objectively” in your unexplained flat denial, you offered only the following:

JohnnyBravo, maybe you should consult a dictionary. I don’t know, maybe that would help.

Since it is an irrefutable fact that men and women can be just friends, it is objectively wrong to claim otherwise.

Your last sentence is here a non-sequitur; the quote you originally claimed was “objectively wrong” does not, in fact, “claim otherwise” and so this statement is entirely unrelated to the original.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
someone October 28, 2009 at 09:20

“The above quote, in which you claimed a fundamental aspect of ladder theory to be objectively wrong, has nothing to do with the question of whether or not men and women can be friends.”

I don’t give a shit if it’s a fundamental aspect of ladder theory. It’s still wrong.

“the quote you originally claimed was “objectively wrong” does not, in fact, “claim otherwise”

Except it does.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Arbitrary October 28, 2009 at 09:46

Except it does.

And now we reach the heart of the matter. You have misunderstood the meaning of the statement that, “‘Friendship’ is a foreign term for a man’s ladder.” As I have previously indicated, “foreign” here means “unrelated to”. As I have previously indicated, ladder theory admits a perfectly reasonable explanation for entirely Platonic friendships (see my first comment). There is no direct conflict between the claim that “‘Friendship’ is a foreign term for a man’s ladder,” and the claim that “Men and women can be friends.” If you want to use one as evidence against the other, you need to actually establish a connection between these two claims.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Gryphon MacThoy October 28, 2009 at 10:01

Arbitrary,
Your handle is perfect for this sort of thing. Basically, what you’ve said is that ‘given this set of specifics, this is a good model to use.’ The problem is that the specifics are so specific, it makes the model useless. Basically, the model depends on the intersection of so many specifics that most people could never put it to any good use.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Arbitrary October 28, 2009 at 10:15

Gryphon, you think that most people could never put to use a model that describes the behavior of most heterosexual men and women in male-female relationships? Do you really believe that this is some kind of rare occurrence?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
someone October 28, 2009 at 10:32

There can’t be friendships if friendships are excluded.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Arbitrary October 28, 2009 at 10:52

Friendships aren’t excluded. They’re just not a relevant factor with regards to a man’s ladder.

Basically, ladder theory says that heterosexual men immediately and continuously judge essentially all women that they meet with regard to their sexual attractiveness. This is done entirely without regard to their potential to be friends…some men may automatically assume that they cannot be friends with women, but others may differ. The point of ladder theory is to say that, even for the men who are willing to be friends, they are still making continuous assessments of the woman’s sexual attractiveness–they assess the woman as a sexual being regardless of their friendship status (although their friendship status may affect the result of the assessment, it does not affect whether or not the assessment is made). Women, by comparison (according to ladder theory), early on in meeting a man, make a binary decision to assess or not assess the man as a sexual object. If the woman decides to assess him as a sexual object, he is placed on the woman’s “real” ladder, and refinements are made from there. If the woman decides to assess him as a non-sexual object, he is placed on the “friend” ladder, and refinements are made from there. Switching from the “friend” ladder to the “real” ladder is hard precisely because it involves discarding this initial assessment–it creates a cognitive dissonance between the existing assumption that the man is a nonsexual object, and his strenuous claims to the contrary.

“Friendship is foreign to a man’s ladder” is saying that men make sexual assessments of basically all women–even the ones with whom he is “friends”, if any.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
kis October 28, 2009 at 11:32

The point of ladder theory is to say that, even for the men who are willing to be friends, they are still making continuous assessments of the woman’s sexual attractiveness–they assess the woman as a sexual being regardless of their friendship status (although their friendship status may affect the result of the assessment, it does not affect whether or not the assessment is made). Women, by comparison (according to ladder theory), early on in meeting a man, make a binary decision to assess or not assess the man as a sexual object. If the woman decides to assess him as a sexual object, he is placed on the woman’s “real” ladder, and refinements are made from there. If the woman decides to assess him as a non-sexual object, he is placed on the “friend” ladder, and refinements are made from there.

Yup. Makes perfect sense. The odd time I’ll read a “friends to lovers” romance, there is almost always a pervasive initial sexual tension that lingers over time, and factors outside that tension that prevent the two from getting together–they’re both in relationships with other people, they work together and can’t date, or even that they’ve become such good friends the woman is unwilling to risk the friendship by complicating it.

Authors almost never go the route of the man jumping ladders, because it’s next to impossible to do convincingly–it’s like manufacturing sexual tension out of what was essentially thin air.

And IRL the men on my “friend ladder” have pretty much no chance of making the leap. That doesn’t stop them from looking at my ass, though.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Doug1 October 28, 2009 at 14:05

kis–

Authors almost never go the route of the man jumping ladders, because it’s next to impossible to do convincingly–it’s like manufacturing sexual tension out of what was essentially thin air.

I think it can happen in certain fairly rare situations. But it very rarely leads to a relationship. Because she’ll be slow and weak to the realization of his newly developed attractiveness; whereas other girls just meeting him, including hotter ones, won’t be.

It can happen when a guy has a huge or very large increase in status. A mixed black/white community organizer become senator and then runs for President. I bet there are lots of women who were friends with Obama who now have lots of gina tingles and regrets over him.

It doesn’t take becoming President to happen. It can happen by becoming a BigLaw partner, with attendant changes in confidence leadership and so on. Probably it was happening on the way up and it make take past the making to move out of junior ranks to really do it. But the thing is this man isn’t going to be interested in the newly divorced former hottie that was just friends with him from college and continuing to when he was a junior associate and she worked in the middle ranks (no grad school delay) of a PR firm. If he becomes single he’s gonna want someone who sees him with fresh eyes, rather than (mostly) converted ones.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Doug1 October 28, 2009 at 14:10

Chuck–

Women, by comparison (according to ladder theory), early on in meeting a man, make a binary decision to assess or not assess the man as a sexual object. If the woman decides to assess him as a sexual object, he is placed on the woman’s “real” ladder, and refinements are made from there.

Yup. These refinements make the theory work much better. The woman can still mostly treat the man as her friend and very much want him to act as one. There are many advantages for the alphaish man in continuing to lightly, to a point game her by teasing etc., but with clear limits. As well limits to what he’ll do for her. Reciprocity in other words, not one way self sacrifice that betas often do and in fact regard as a chivalrous ideal. (Well it was a chivalrous ideal in Western medieval times, but only for the one much higher ranking, taken beauty, as opposed to the general way to treat all attractive women.)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Novaseeker October 28, 2009 at 14:21

And IRL the men on my “friend ladder” have pretty much no chance of making the leap.

Yup, which is the key practical insight, for men, coming from ladder theory.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
kis October 28, 2009 at 14:24

It can happen when a guy has a huge or very large increase in status. A mixed black/white community organizer become senator and then runs for President. I bet there are lots of women who were friends with Obama who now have lots of gina tingles and regrets over him.

Yup, or if he loses weight, buffs up and invests in some hair plugs and contact lenses. Or makes a bajillion dollars in the stock market.

But for the most part, there has to be some pretty major change. And I think for some men–if they were sufficiently in love with/pining for a particular female friend–they’d still want a relationship. Then again, they’ve probably spent years idealizing the whole notion of a relationship with her, and it would be pretty unlikely the reality would live up to the dream. Cue doomsday music.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
zed October 28, 2009 at 14:30

invests in some hair plugs

Hair plugs?!!? HAIR PLUGS?!?!?!

Good god, woman, all your taste is in your mouth! ;)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
kis October 28, 2009 at 14:36

I was being funny. :P Actually, bald can be pretty hot. Only problem is there’s nothing to grab onto except his ears.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Welmer October 28, 2009 at 14:39

Yeah, the hair plugs bit was pretty funny. I didn’t think women cared much about men’s hair, anyway. I thought a fat wallet was the most attractive attribute a man could possess.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
zed October 28, 2009 at 14:45

Only problem is there’s nothing to grab onto except his ears.

How does a French girl hold her liquor? (say it out loud)

By the ears! ;)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
21Guns October 28, 2009 at 14:45

Hair>Wallet. But then, I’m a weirdo. A weirdo with her own fat wallet.

But hair plugs, ew. Better bald than fake.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Lethargio October 28, 2009 at 15:38

As a guy, I’d love to go to a bar where the theme of the night was that all women were the ones who have to chat up the guys. Strictly, no guy intiating the courting, etc.

Does this exist? I’ve seen on comedy shows where women ‘bid’ for guys standing in a row or something but have not heard of nights where women have to take the plunge. I suppose speed-dating comes close.

Just thinking about this idea and now having nightmares, can imagine having to wrestle off some mamas… This idea looks more like mayhem, a riot…

So women would say ‘Hah, now you know what it’s like, fighting off unwanted advances!’, but I think men would be more clear-cut, not stringing the ‘betas’ along or think they could handle unmanagable multiple friendships. I don’t use Facebook but as an example I’ve heard you actually compete to be someone’s top friend? Narcissism galore for the person getting all the attention, which is a bit like what happens in the ‘real’ world. Women know how to ‘Awwww’ men, keep ‘em sweet and clucking.

Friendzoning is torture, psychological incarceration. No man wants to end up as a ‘key-ring’. It’s not bad being turned down if you don’t see her again but if you work with her or live close it’s difficult. You have to move on or she’ll always have that card, a smile from her is enough to keep you stringin’ along. Guys can’t help interpreting this so. And if you see her next time with her man, it hurts even more if she sees you hands in pockets alone.

Yet once I tried a slowly-slowly approach with a lady, which meant I was willing to accept a friendly period. It would be unfair to say I was doing it just for sex, throwing me into the ‘all men are pack of wolves’ den. It wasn’t so, man I was serious about this lady and just employed the basic forms of respect, what any person would have wanted. Yes if we had a relationship sex would/may(?) have resulted but I can’t say it was my top priority. If I was willing to accept a friendly period then that meant my sexual base was controllable.

So was I ultimately in control of my sexual default (hump, hump, hump)? Or was my celibacy ‘forced’ upon me for this period? I felt like I was in control.

A ‘sacrifice’ (holding out) for the sake of a hopeful relationship? But my sexual inquisitiveness still would have been tested. I would have always imagined what it would have been like to sleep with her, but for the sake of testing the water, I reckon I could have held out pretty long. This is more a sign of human strength.

Guys differentiate women more than women give them credit for. This lady I met was more ‘romantic-looking’ and naturally evoked this approach from me – to be more reserved, respectful, polite, quite ‘old-fashioned’, if you will, which naturally facilitates a friendzone period. She was not sexy, did not dress provocatively, but was amazingly beautiful.

Girls who ‘hang it out’ will get the wolves, it looks like. But I ain’t no different, there are days where sex is like a storm in my head, but if you see someone with ‘lady-like’ qualities it really can defuse you, change your demeanour. Which is what a lot of people are crying out for – ‘a variety of ladies’ – against the current ‘homogenizing’ of tarty women. The effect of women hanging it all out is having much effect on society’s/men’s perceptions – a puritan conservative argument, perhaps. Women do seem to be narrowing their skills of attraction, though, therefore categorising all men to be crowding the bottom of the ladder (also as ‘wolves’).

Our emotions and urges fluctuate, days where I wanna ‘sex-it-up’ and days where I wanna ‘romance’ and I can be influenced accordingly.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Doug1 October 28, 2009 at 22:14

kis

And I think for some men–if they were sufficiently in love with/pining for a particular female friend–they’d still want a relationship. Then again, they’ve probably spent years idealizing the whole notion of a relationship with her, and it would be pretty unlikely the reality would live up to the dream. Cue doomsday music.

Yeah. Because she’ll in fact give him less alpha cred than any other woman of similar hotness, and less than a great many way hotter than her aged self. Further his going for her when she’s still not giving him his due, just enough to be considerably interested, would be a seriously beta /submissive reversion on his part.

Of course our entire media culture, or 95% of it, tells him that’s just what would be “romantic” and admirable for him to do. It’s disgusting, from a man’s point of view. Make that an aware, sentient man’s point of view, as opposed to a thoroughly propagandized one’s.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
someone October 28, 2009 at 22:47

Arbitrary, your personal interpretation of ladder theory is irrelevant to me.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
cheshirecat March 11, 2010 at 23:03

As a guy, I’d love to go to a bar where the theme of the night was that all women were the ones who have to chat up the guys. Strictly, no guy intiating the courting, etc.

What, nightclubbing ala Sadie Hawkins? Interesting thought.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
TrollKing March 15, 2010 at 16:26

Wow, I always knew this and just called it something else. The way women market their sexuality. She gives it away for free to alphas and sells it to betas. Women don’t just market their sex, they intertwine their emotions in it too. Thats why so many women have the nice guy friend that acts as her emotional tampon.

Why be friends with a woman, they treat you just like a boyfriend but without the sex. They really treat you like a psychologist, but they never pay. Or maybe guys should start charging 100$ an hour to listen to their day and their childhood problems and yatta yada.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Stallywood March 16, 2010 at 11:05

1. Meeting more single women.
2. Showing the “friend” that you are desirable to other women and maybe a ladder jump is possible.
If the “friend” is reluctant to make introductions to her single friends, dump her fast as a friend because she’s fundamentally useless to you.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I totally agree with this tactic and I feel that it works. Sometimes the friend will actively introduce you to other girls, I guess to assuage some sense of guilt. But its all good. Also a friend that does not help you at all, I agree with the poster , dump her useless ass.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Mae March 26, 2010 at 05:56

LJBF is nice speak for “I am just not into you.” As for men having one ladder. That is silly. Men have two ladders too. The Girlfriend ladder for good girls and the FuckBuddy/FWB ladder for bad girls. The thing is if your on the GF ladder, some men will start looking for women on the FWB ladder. If your on the FWB ladder, men are looking other women to be on the GF ladder. Men want some one nice in the living room and wicked in the bedroom, but are hesitant to seek this is the same person. It’s called the madonna/whore complex and has been around much longer than ladder theory.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Common Monster April 26, 2010 at 13:39

^^^^ Nah, that “madonna/whore complex” was invented by women who thought their value as a whore would be increased if they could market themselves as ladies and/or virgins, because these did/do have a much higher value as GF/wife material, but come with downsides the whore doesn’t want to incur.

It’s part of the Trying To Have It Both Ways complex.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Lavazza April 27, 2010 at 01:16

Coomon Monster: I agree. Women want to decide what to be in every single minute.

Here is an interesting story:

“Young King Arthur was ambushed and imprisoned by the monarch of a neighboring kingdom. The monarch could have killed him but was moved by Arthur’s youth and ideals. So, the monarch offered him his freedom, as long as he could answer a very difficult question. Arthur would have a year to figure out the answer and, if after a year, he still had no answer, he would be put to death. The question? “What do women really want?” Such a question would perplex even the most knowledgeable man, and to young Arthur, it seemed an impossible query. But, since it was better than death, he accepted the monarch’s proposition to have an answer by year’s end. He returned to his kingdom and began to poll everyone: the princess, the priests, the wise men and even the court jester. He spoke with everyone, but no one could give him a satisfactory answer. Many people advised him to consult the old witch, for only she would have the answer. But the price would be high; as the witch was famous throughout the kingdom for the exorbitant prices she charged. The last day of the year arrived and Arthur had no choice but to talk to the witch. She agreed to answer the question, but he would have to agree to her price first. The old witch wanted to marry Sir Lancelot, the most noble of the Knights of the Round Table and Arthur’s closest friend! Young Arthur was horrified. She was hunchbacked and hideous, had only one tooth, smelled like sewage, made obscene noises, etc. He had never encountered such a repugnant creature in all his life. He refused to force his friend to marry her and endure such a terrible burden, but Lancelot, learning of the proposal, spoke with Arthur. He said nothing was too big of a sacrifice compared to Arthur’s life and the preservation of the Round Table. Hence, a wedding was proclaimed and the witch answered Arthur’s question thus: What a woman really wants, she answered…. is to be in charge of her own life. Everyone in the kingdom instantly knew that the witch had uttered a great truth and that Arthur’s life would be spared. And so it was, the neighboring monarch granted Arthur his freedom and Lancelot and the witch had a wonderful wedding. The honeymoon hour approached and Lancelot, steeling himself for a horrific experience, entered the bedroom. But, what a sight awaited him. The most beautiful woman he had ever seen, lay before him on the bed. The astounded Lancelot asked what had happened. The beauty replied that since he had been so kind to her when she appeared as a witch, she would henceforth, be her horrible deformed self only half the time and the beautiful maiden the other half. Which would he prefer? Beautiful during the day….or night? Lancelot pondered the predicament. During the day, a beautiful woman to show off to his friends, but at night, in the privacy of his castle, an old witch? Or, would he prefer having a hideous witch during the day, but by night, a beautiful woman for him to enjoy wondrous, intimate moments? Noble Lancelot, knowing the answer the witch gave Arthur to his question, said that he would allow her to make the choice herself. Upon hearing this, she announced that she would be beautiful all the time because he had respected her enough to let her be in charge of her own life. The moral is that it doesn’t matter if your woman is pretty or ugly, underneath it all, she’s still a witch.”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
MrAlighieri April 28, 2010 at 08:11

The moral is that it doesn’t matter if your woman is pretty or ugly, underneath it all, she’s still a witch.”

Or one could interpret the story to mean that by giving women the choice to live as they choose, even if it is not the way we would prefer them to live, we in turn get the best of both worlds.

Regards,

Mr. Alighieri

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Michael O'Nolan June 13, 2011 at 11:58

Here’s an interesting fact for you: the term “ladder theory” is an Anglicised form of the Connaught Irish phrase “laodhr torigh”, which roughly translates as “it’s women’s fault I’m a whiny, self-hating prick with delusions of adequacy”.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Shiva May 5, 2013 at 05:31

I personally think this is COMPLETELY FALSE… the ladder theory and friendzone stuffs, whatever these are, they are completely false.

I used to be friends with this girl I love now, and always thought that yes we will forever be friends. She even mentioned back 3 years ago that we can be friends and nothing more.

Looking into today, I dated this girl thrice and we have so much in common. I don’t go for the “LOOKS” of the girl (she looks very normal, not too beautiful in terms of looks) but her personality is amazing. She has lovely dreams.

I love her not to FUCK her. Or have sex with her. I love her for what she is, and the amazing feeling I get whenever I am with her.

So I am not someone from the ladder concept. After all GOD created me, and only he knows what ladder is to be followed when and how. No human being can make a ladder theory and prove the psychology of love. C’mon, scientists failed to examine even 5% of the entire brain, and you people have started making theories out of the blue???

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Leave a Comment

{ 1 trackback }

Previous post:

Next post: