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.