are you fucking kidding me? seriously THAT is your rebuttal? Do I have to look into their souls to know that the majority of them like to fuck too?

I'd really like to hear all the believers answer my question. Menoman, you're first up.

A) I'm currently single
B) Who hasn't been rejected once? Even non believers of the theory have been.
C) I have had more than 1 good, healthy longterm relationship.

1)current status has nothing to do with it, I've known the theory and even saw truth in it when I was in one of those relationships. Having an open mind doesn't change when you're in a relationship
2)makes no sense, thats like saying "who has been kissed at least once" it really doesnt affect anything.
3) makes sense, and like I previously stated also, some people do not see truth in the theory because of its accuracy, some use it as an excuse for their inadequacy. I do not believe most do.

This poll appears to be an ad hominem attack. I don't see how the results either way could speak to the validity of "Ladder Theory".

Much like any other theory, I would like to see empirical evidence beyond personal anecdotes. I don't know of any social psychologists that use ladder theory in their research. I have also never seen any empirical investigations of the theory appear in a peer reviewed scientific journal.

EDIT: I suppose that if all people are using to support or refute the theory is personal experience, ad hominem attacks might be appropriate.

Well, that's kind of what I'm getting at. If people are using personal experience to evaluate theories, then I want to know what those personal experiences are. At least it will bring a degree of reality and non-abstraction to the thread, which will never be a "scientific" evaluation of anything (this is, after all, an internet forum).

I don't feel that I am attacking anyone, just asking an honest question that has been poked around by pretty much everyone here who dislikes the Ladder Theory. (E.g., stating that people who believe it are those who are bitter, rejected nerds, etc). I want to hear what the believers are basing their beliefs on, that's all.

I'm also bored and getting tired of the same old track that this thread seems to be wearing into the forum. Let's talk about real experiences here, folks.

Menoman, thanks. This gives me a little more insight to your responses, which is helpful.

I believe it (the OP link) is a philosophy that can be applied in part (no, not in the extreme that the author pushes) much like my other over-the-top-for-humor mantra of Henry Rollins Mekanik... which states that, in fact, "We {men} ALL want to fuck you..."

I don't really want to fuck every girl. Not all of 'em. Just a good portion.

- I'm seeing a girl right now, but I don't like superfluous titles like "girlfriend" anymore.
- Everybody gets rejected. NO WAY!? I got rejected a la divorce while I was deployed in A-stan.
- I've had many good, healthy long-term relationships. They didn't work out.

This isn't rocket science.

I'll give you some real life experience.

I am 42, attractive and I have never dated a man for his money, his looks or because he seemed 'bad.'

Not even when I was 18 years old. I've always been 'turned on' by 'the click.'

I'm talking, hanging out, laughing and something just clicks and bam! that person is irresistibly attractive to me. Consequently, I have also been talked up by rich and extremely handsome men before and they are subject to the same exact standard. Funny thing is, as of yet, none of them have made the grade.

I have had bad relationships, good relationships and relationships that just ended.

What you guys are perpetually doing is limiting yourself to one particular subset of females. Perhaps, subconsciously you tell yourself that if you get one of these 'unobtainable' girls then you are a better, stronger, more desirable man. But really all you are is a fool. Talk about being used...who's using who? They're just as fucked up as you are. You're better off being the 'cuddle whore.' That relationship, at least, is somewhat real (someone else already said that, I think, so I reiterate).

But at any rate, stop using your fuck-schemas to dictate what is going on all over, because you're just being obtuse. And what's worse, you're limiting yourselves to a world where relationships are a game to be played like 'guerrilla marketing' or any of those other covert persuasion (ie, lying) bullshit sales/influence theories. Do you really want to live your life that way?

I'll have to read the whole thing to really decide, so here goes...

Ok I have to agree with this one. Women don't' say what they really want in a man and asking that question is silly, the funny part is that most don't know what they really want.


This is also true.

He is right that if a guy finds a woman attractive he would like to have sex with her as a rule (and a strong rule) I do think hes off on the a guy would have sex with any woman 'friend' no matter the attraction.

I think the problem, besides the obvious misogynistic undertones, is that it gives external reasons for what a really internal problems.

If a guy is 'weak' in some fashion, he will be unattractive to women. The solution to this is to figure out why you seem undesirable and change it yourself.

The feeling I get from this guy is that of a victim, and a victim who blames women for his problems and that there is no way to get ahead in this unless you suddenly become rich or manipulative.

I can see why this appeals to some guys. Had I read this when I was 19, after a bad break up, I'd quite possibly have said 'yes thats it', and his bitter misogynistic tones would have southed my sorrow.

Still wouldn't have made me more attractive to women though and luckily I figured that one out soon after as I was due to meet my future wife the following year.

Guess who's in college right now.
Sure, I can find some truth in it: everyone knows people they want to fuck and people they don't, men and women look for different things in a relationship, people judge each other starting the second they meet them, and so on. This doesn't mean that it's fair to say that all women (or 99.99% are bitches) and that men are driven solely by their desire for sex. Hell, the guy who wrote this all but flat-out admits it's satire.

I'm done with this thread, it's not going anywhere.

No, that was just an observation meant to help you see the ludicridity (i just coined that word) of your position.

As far as rebuttals go, since the process of rebutting generally involves some sort of refutation of evidence, it's difficult to rebut something when you've offered absolutely zero objective evidence to back it up. The fact that you think you can make claims about the nature of the majority of women, i think, actually points to the fact that you don't really know all that much about them- at least not enough to know how much you don't know. So your assertion that you understand the motivations of a majority of women can't be refuted, because there's nothing to refute- it's a matter of opinion that you're trying to pass of as some sort of objective reality, like "Red is the best color."

But fuck it, i'll try anyway. I do realize that there are women who just want men with money, but, the fact that everyday, millions, poor men hook-up would seem to fly in the face of your assertion that the majority of women want men with money so much so that poor men need a special "theory" to help them get laid. In fact, poor men have been getting laid since long before there was a website devoted to telling the hapless of them that its not their fault.

None of the women i've been with were interested in my money- because i don't fucking have any. I would be willing to wager large sums of this money that i don't have that most of the ladies i have been with don't concern themselves with the earning potential of the people they choose to get involved in a relationship with, much less the people they're just going to fuck.

i think a simple way to figure this out is...


establish what is and is not an acceptable threshold of income for a male to achieve for "having money"

see how many on one side of that line are married
see how many on the other side of that line are married.

compare the happiness level of the married trailer park couple vs the married couple living in thier 2-3 story house with the white picket fence.

Shauk, that's a good idea. The only complication is that it would be measuring outcomes after the fact (after the couple is already married), when in fact the Theory is supposed to be measuring people's preferences while *looking* for someone to marry. E.g. some guy might have made a ton of money while he was dating/engaged, but then after marriage became a bum, or vice versa. So you have to control for that factor somehow... maybe by asking men's (and women's) income levels before marriage, and how that changed during marriage?

I actually think a study like this has probably been done... in my Demography program, there are quite a few people whose specialties are in Human Development and Family Studies. I'll take a peek around the research publications for something relevant...

I don't see the difference in saying the Ladder Theory isn't true and saying it is true. None of us have real data to back it up. All I can say is I've seen events in real life play out according to the ladder theory on multiple occasions, more often that events do not. I don't have any huge sample data to go by and I don't have research papers to back my conclusions. My conclusions are based on me witnessing this theory play out in college over and over and over and over. Maybe it doesn't happen everywhere. But when I personally see it played out a dozen times within my small group of friends, I can't help but agree with it to a certain degree.

Is it exaggerated? Yeah. Is it made partly in jest? Yeah. Does it have a pretty big point fundamentally? Yes.

Maybe the people who go to TFP don't associate with it well because they're logical, reasonable human beings, as the ladder theory is mainly concerned with the general public (not logical, reasonable human beings). It's reasonable that the ladder theory may in fact be played out more than the naysayers admit, it simply gets played out among a different sector of the population.

And I will swear on my life that the guy-can't-be-friends-with-a-girl theorem they have going on has merit. :thumbsup:

Actually this wouldn't work, the reason being that normally you don't meet your future mates after you have money.

I'm doing fine now, but when I met my wife I was a typical unemployed college student who couldn't offer her more then the occational dinner at olive garden.

Now there is a theory (and a 'real' one from guys with PhD's and the like) that what women find attractive at this point is traits which would give you the potential of future success.

So confidence, intelligence, a good social network, etc are all things which might clue off a young woman that this guy will someday be rich/important. The difference between this and the ladder theory is this is all unconscious. Few young women are thinking 'mmm lets see he has friends, is intelligent, and seems to have it together, I bet some day he makes 6 figures', its more of a 'Wow what a great guy'.

I was pre-med when I met my wife, and we used to joke about 'the test'. This is when you were getting serious with a girl you would tell her you decided to skip med school and instead go into research and get a masters, maybe stay at the university.

Now for the fun part, my wife, then gf, failed the test. She was pretty worried about the whole perpetual student life I laid out for myself. To me this was a good thing because I already knew she was insanely in love with me, but her reasons for me not doing a life of laboratory work were the same as my own so I couldn't really fault her.

This thread is a great read. I love how the non-believers get their panties in a bunch about the generalizations made by the creator and then go out and make their own generalizations. Classic.

Money, potential for money... same thing.

No, they are not. If you look at research relating to what women prefer in long-term mates versus short-term mates, women tend to emphasize the importance of immediate resources (and a variety of other traits) in short-term relationships and emphasize the importance of intelligence, motivation, industriousness (and other traits) in long-term mate selection. An early examination of this can be found here:


Greiling, H., Buss, D.M. (2000). Women's Sexual Strategies: The hidden dimension of extra pair mating. Personality and Individual Differences, 28, 929-963.

A later investigation by a related researcher can be found here:

Li, N. P. (2007). Mate Preference Necessities in Long- and Short-Term Mating: People Prioritize in Themselves What Their Mates Prioritize in Them. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 39, 528-535.

Both of the above studies rely on self-report. Others researchers have used different methods. Both papers are testing hypotheses forwarded by:

Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual Strategies Theory: A contextual evolutionary analysis of human mating. Psychological Review, 100, 204-232.

who got a lot of his ideas from:


Most of the research cited above came out of the same lab or group of labs. There is a larger body of research that supports the hypothesis that men and women have different mate preferences, and that those mate preferences differ depending on the type of relationship they are seeking (and on their personal situation).

I would expect that the thresholds for acceptable income might depend on the mate value of both partners. So, I would expect marital bliss to be related more to matching levels of mate value between partners rather than absolute mate value levels. To put it bluntly a man who is a 2/10 might have greater marital stability with a partner who is a 2/10 than with a partner who is an 8/10.

"We all want to fuck you!"

My point is, I don't have to get inside an orange to know its orange inside.

Take two guys, one who is a decent looking, fairly nice guy, makes a good enough living that he can afford necessities and go out a few times a month.

The other guy, is not very good looking, a bit unkempt, smells a little bit, and is fucking loaded.


Being honest, we all know 9 out of 10 women will go for that rich bastard. Do you disagree? I will be very suprised if you do. That seems such a basic thing.




It's a pity we don't have a Mens Forum (I'd call it Urinal Cakes) so we could have this thread without female interferance. I believe it would have ended up much differently without women here who obviously take offense to the entire theory. (Just to keep the truth hidden lol just kidding:P )

In all honesty I would go for the first guy smelly =/= sexy in my books

And yes I know you're going to say I am being dishonest because I don't agree with what you want me to say but /shrug that's your problem not mine.

As for your correlation between women and oranges that's just stupid. You've opened up and looked inside numerous oranges so you can say that most oranges are going to be orange. Can you say that you've understood every aspect of numerous female psyches? what makes them tick what they want from life for themselves, their partners, their children, friends and family? That you know their dreams and ambitions?

Until you can HONESTLY say that you understood exactly how they work (and I don't think anyone can say that they completely understand anyone else) you can't say that you have any understanding of women enough to decide whether they're orange, red, blue, purple or pink with yellow polkadots inside. It's like me giving you a bag of clinkers (chocolate covered lollies that come with different coloured candy filling) and asking you to guess which colour you've picked out.

clinkers

I kinda like "Mens Manor" to match "Ladies Lounge" personally

Well I can't say globally but I can tell you it wouldn't be 9 out of 10 women I know.

I also know a good number of well off guys who don't have anything special for a wife.

Heh well I think the theory is pretty lacking and I can't say any womans opinion would affect how I post, after all I'm not looking to get laid here ;)

The theory contains some truth, but is pretty well useless to either sex.

gimme a bag of clinkers and after awhile I can still tell you how good my chances are of getting a certain color.

Honestly though, I'm pretty much done, I really don't think you guys have any arguement, I mean seriously..... money/power =/= sexy?? I don't know how you are even saying this.

People only take offense to those things they peceive to be true.

Damn, sapiens, you found the stuff I was trying to scare up... nice work. Now, is anyone reading what he posted? Here we have scientific studies, the kind that actually mean something. Or are you just proceeding along with your own opinions, not even bothering to click on these links?

You're right, but you know, at the same time...live by the sword, die by the sword. The entire system is based on pigeon-holing yourself and others.

I don't think being greedy is an innate characteristic of being a woman- so the orange thing doesn't really make sense to me.

The rich guy and the not rich guy isn't a matter of honesty. All you're being honest about is your perspective on women- there isn't any kind of objective truth to what you're saying. It isn't a "basic thing," it is an illustration of how you view the world and nothing more, and, while i understand that you think the vast majority of women are greedy, i don't think that that's accurate. There is no way for us to reconcile these two perspectives. Though to me it doesn't really make much sense to try and say meaningful things about women when there is no way you're in any kind of position to make such claims, i.e. claiming that all women are greedy isn't credible because there's no way that you've even come close to dealing with enough women, each one in such a way that you've seen that they're all mainly concerned with money.

What's really classic is that the true believers put all their faith in getting some in some overly broad, self serving generalization, and then start whining when they get generalized about. "Aside from the one where all women are greedy bitches- i find generalizations to be distasteful and inaccurate."

Then, what's even more classic is that instead of attempting to refute the generalizations that they don't like- namely that they need to grow up and stop trying to find love in shallow people- they just reassert the generalization that they do like- that all women are greedy bitches.

If you had put more effort into reading the thread, you'd see that many of the "non believers" think that ladder theory is accurate under limited circumstances. The idea, though, is that the people for whom it doesn't apply outnumber the people for whom it does, and so if you avoid the people to whom it applies- and if you're complaining about them you probably shoud- it's useless.


Is that why all the "true believers" take offense at being told that they don't know what they're talking about when if comes to women? I mean shit, the fact that you have to subscribe to someone else's theory concerning interacting with the opposite sex implies that you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to interacting with the opposite sex, right?

Wow, my mouth is full of all the words you just put in it. Thanks for speaking for me.

The Ladder Theory is a fun read that I learned about years ago. I think it's more of less true and explains a lot of things I'd see from people when I was younger. However, it doesn't affect my life because I'm married and don't plan on getting a divorce.

The theory has a lot of funny things about it. The "Cuddle Bitch" part is great. I knew a few of them and they were just pathetic. However, the best thing is seeing the responses it gets from people who take it way too seriously.

So many people are so wrapped up in the things that the author said to define what women and men want and seem to miss the rest of it. So freaking what if the author said that half of attraction is money for women? Get over it. Stating that financial worth is typically more important to women then men does not have to boil down to "women are greedy bitches".

That quote goes well with: Everybody's doin' it!

Excuse me, but did you even READ the studies?

http://homepage.psy.utexas.edu/homepage/group/BussLAB/pdffiles/women's%20sexual%20strategies--PAID-2000.pdf

Look at page 953. I guess you happened to miss that one.

http://homepage.psy.utexas.edu/homep...heory_1993.pdf

Or check out that little chart at the top of page 222.

What are you talking about? How did i put words into your mouth?

So your response is essentially, "I think it's amusing, so anyone who doesn't should just get the fuck over it"? Well, shit man, that's great for you, if only we could all be you, and then we could dispense with any sort of discussion about the things we disagree upon because there'd be no disagreement.

yeah her post confused me too.

seems like this is backing up the ladder theory, not refuting it in any way.

Dude, chill out. My post was not intended to be hostile. I read the abstracts and skimmed the studies, and I'm glad that we finally have some scientific work to base opinions on around here, even if I don't agree with its methodology.

Sapiens points out some very relevant facts. These studies are based on self-reporting, which is an obvious source of error... compared with, say, direct observation of how people behave and act. It's one thing to ask what people *think* they do, but when you compare that with what they *actually* do, there is a great deal more variation. That's why we do participant-observation in anthropology, as opposed to surveys in sociology (which give less context and often rely on self-reporting alone). You need both methods to obtain greater validity.

Also, I agree very much with this: Yes, amazingly, people have different mate preferences, based on individual preferences and types of relationships. This is what we've all been saying in this thread... yes, plenty of people are shallow and play right along with the Ladder Theory. But plenty of people DON'T. Is that so hard to admit? I didn't see anything in the studies that went against that point. Nor was there anything in the studies talking about "intellectual whores" and "cuddle bitches," which doesn't have anything to do with resources...

Perhaps, but at least my statements were aimed specifically towards individuals based on things they actually said instead of some hysterical self-pandering speculation based on the idea that all women are like Ginger on Gilligan's Island.

Some people are shallow, and I guess they tend to show up for societal studies. Others aren't shallow, and they're worth your time.

All methods of data collection have pros and cons. People's stated preferences are likely related to their behavior. So, self report does have some value. The 1993 paper cites a number of different studies that use behavioral data. Results from behavioral data support the conclusions drawn from self report.
Among the points to note in the previously posted papers:
1) There are reliable sex differences in the preference for physical attractiveness in both short-term and long-term mates.
2) Both men and women place a greater emphasis on physical attractiveness in short-term mates.
3) Women place a greater emphasis on immediate resource investment in short-term mating contexts.
4) Men and women select short-term and long-term mates using a variety of criteria. Physical attractiveness and resource investment are just 2 of those criteria.
5)Though as IL mentions, there are sex differences in the preferences for resource investment in both long-term and short-term mating contexts, the absolute values of those ratings are low. (Women rate the important of resource investment around 1.2 out of 5 on a Likert scale in ST relationships and 1.8 out of 5 in LT relationships).

Do you have any evidence that "shallow" people are more likely to participate in psychological studies? Mate preferences data has been collected in upwards of 40 different cultures around the world. Participant recruitment methods are designed to obtain a representative sample.

next chart is 44 female subjects

Infact the only charts in there I can find that have over 50 female participants are the graph charts - the one on page 225 is interesting but without knowing what the 18 variables used to determine 'good financial prospects' not very helpful.

My point being that I could quite easily go out and find over 50 people in a country who would tell you some truly stupid things are true (I was going to make a list but it got too long).


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


To support my theory earlier that all men care about is having a hot and easy girl I have :

Page 213 Table 2

Page 210 Figure 1


(Page 209)

That specifically makes me laugh due to the amount of posts in the sexuality section claimng all women want is a guy that fits the physical model of desirability.

(Page 210)

(Page 213)


(Page 213)

(Page 214)

All from the scientific site I linked to earlier.

All the above is from http://homepage.psy.utexas.edu/homep...heory_1993.pdf

From http://homepage.psy.utexas.edu/homep...AB/Li,2007.pdf I have :


(Page 529)

(Page 530)

(Page 533)

I will admit I am experiencing a growing urge to make a website devoted to the fact that as long as you're pretty you can get whatever guy you want, you don't have to worry about being intelligent, funny, successful or independent. I wonder if I did would some other web forum be in a heated debate about guys caring more about what's in a girls head rather then attached to her chest?


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


All these theories (including the Ladder theory) assume that people are consciously or subconciously choosing a partner according to some vast strategy, isn't it at all possible that we're choosing a partner who meets our needs as an individual? That we want someone that we believe matches us in social status and physical appearance.

The outcome of the study is evidence, albeit circumstantial. And considering the cornucopia of people I know, it doesn't accurately represent my understanding of humanity on the whole.

I don't trust this study.

I would hardly call the unconscious search of looking for the best genes for your children, 'shallow'.

I've read these sorts of studies before my self and can't deny that the generalizations do fit the population as a whole.

There are good reasons you rarely see an ugly female with an attractive male and often see attractive females with ugly males. Its all part of searching for the best future for your children, even if the intent is to not have them.

If you want to get technical, all theories are generalizations. None is without it's exceptions. It still doesn't change the fact that the ladder theory holds true in a great deal of situations in which it's applied.

So how does this statement coincide with your earlier assertion that 99.9% of women are bitches is '10000000% true' and other absolute statements about the ladder theory? Could it be you were being disingenuous to get under people's skin?

Yes, yes... but '10000000% true' IS a nice round number.

I think Infinite_Loser is using the same brand of literary tactics that the author of the theory used.

But, uh, more betterer.

Heh, what else have we been doing? Not being technical?

Glad to see you're being more reasonable now, anyway. :) Yep, there are exceptions to every generalization, thank god. Those are the ones you marry. :D

A.) 0.1% IS the exception :D

B.) Find me where I said the statement "99.9% of women are bitches" is "10000000% true".

Well, I think you two would have wonderful children if I_L wasn't all about sex and MM wasn't all about money.

Please call 911 and tell them i fell off a ladder.

Well, I fucked-up. I see you actually quoted the cuddle bitch part.

But I'll bet you were thinking it. :D

Actually, I'll bet you good money that you've got those priorities switched, my good man. :lol:

Yeah, I suppose you're right.

I_L is the voice of fiscal responsibility.