http://www.intellectualwhores.com/masterladder.html

theBishop posted this in a topic in the religion forum, and I thought I should post it here. What does everyone think about it? Correct/bullshit?

me thinketh the second optioneth as she will be more willing to *cough* "experiment"......eth

bull shit.100% bull shit.

see?

Argh, not that infernal crapola again.

As I've said before, that tangle of inaccuracies written by a disgruntled dipshit who aims way out of his league might apply to 2% of women.

Most guys who think women "can't be pleased" or "want too much" or "are bitches who only like assholes" refuse to understand the concept of "leagues." Hate to say it, but "hot" women can always do way better than you. ("you" in a general sense, not referring to sp0rkius.)

What about emotional vulturing? I can get hot chicks through that.

What is the difference between ladder theory and the concept of leagues?

Leagues are part of the ladder theory. While the ladder theory is flawed, in most cases, it is rather accurate as to how things work. Even women who honestly like nice guys will show lust and wanting for someone with power or looks instead, simply because it's instinct. We are still animals, and we always will be, that's why we still cheat, ignore the ugle fat people, and all the other shit we ALL consider mean and wrong, but still do anyways because we'll make an excuse to practice our instincts.

^I just reread the ladder theory and it seems to be pretty much what you just said.

quote:Originally posted by Trippy_McGee:

What about emotional vulturing? I can get hot chicks through that.

lol, yeah Trippy's middle name is honesty.

Although that still is a good way...

I'm honest on totse because I have to lie in real life.

quote: ("you" in a general sense, not referring to sp0rkius.)

Good job too, no one can do better than me .

I'd like to believe that ladder theory is bullshit, but it seems to make sense - and as Hexadecimal says it does take leauges into account. In my experiance, girls do like assholes. On the other hand, not all women are the same... I know a few non-assholes who managed to end up with girls that they'd been friends with for quite a while. I guess no rules apply absolutely, maybe deadlycindy is right that it only applies to a certain "type" of woman, though I think it may be more than just 2%.

Trippy, you slay me!

Anyway the latter theory is a funny read, and it's to be taken with a grain of salt (more like a shaker of salt). It's very tongue-in-cheek, and anyone who can't see that shouldn't b e using the internet

Only the gay and the female will try to discredit and insult the Ladder Theory. Like Hexadecimal (what a smart guy) said, the theory is flawed, yet sadly true in most cases. Although the author(s) of the Ladder Theory are apparently somewhat bitter about women, their findings still hold true.

Last time I was on a latter, it sunk a few feet into the ground (stupid mud). I think that means I lose.

quote:Only the gay and the female will try to discredit and insult the Ladder Theory... the theory is flawed, yet sadly true in most cases. Although the author(s) of the Ladder Theory are apparently somewhat bitter about women, their findings still hold true.[/B]

"True" is a strong word. I doubt you have references to back this up, since a valid scientific study would be impossible.

Yours is just an opinion from yet another guy who tries to play above his league. If you ended up on the "friend ladder" that's just your perception of events. It was simply that she could do better and didn't want to date you.

quote:Originally posted by deadlycindy:

"True" is a strong word. I doubt you have references to back this up, since a valid scientific study would be impossible.

Yours is just an opinion from yet another guy who tries to play above his league. If you ended up on the "friend ladder" that's just your perception of events. It was simply that she could do better and didn't want to date you.

uh what you are describing is the ladder theory. thus the steps of the ladder and the friend ladder.

quote:Originally posted by mrman383:

uh what you are describing is the ladder theory. thus the steps of the ladder and the friend ladder.

Moron. Look up "perception" in a dictionary. Look up "moron" too, while you're at it.

quote:Originally posted by Corrupt Civilian:

Only the gay and the female will try to discredit and insult the Ladder Theory...

Okay...

quote:Originally posted by Corrupt Civilian:

...the theory is flawed...

So... gay or female?

quote:Originally posted by Trippy_McGee:

Moron. Look up "perception" in a dictionary. Look up "moron" too, while you're at it.



it would probably be a good thing if you were aware of the subject being discussed. her comment on perception has absolutely zero to do with said subject.

MORON! She said that the "steps" and the "friend ladder" were only his perception and do not apply to reality. That's like saying angels don't exist and having a moron (namely you) claim that you've admitted they exist by merely mentioning the word.

quote:Originally posted by Trippy_McGee:

MORON! She said that the "steps" and the "friend ladder" were only his perception and do not apply to reality. That's like saying angels don't exist and having a moron (namely you) claim that you've admitted they exist by merely mentioning the word.

well youve proven your point, you either have no read the ladder theory or you do not understand it.

she said:

quote:It was simply that she could do better and didn't want to date you.

the ladder theory says: (http://www.intellectualwhores.com/masterladder.html)

quote:Descending down to the bottom of the ladder we pass the following people:

1. The people we really want, who may even be out of our league, are on top

2. Then come the people we like

3. Moving further down we pass the people who we would fuck if we were intoxicated and would admit to doing it later.

4. At the bottom are the people we would fuck drunk, and would lie about doing it later.



therefore what she was saying is what the ladder theory is saying. all it takes is literacy...

It ain't the same. That damn "ladder theory" assumes all people (at least, males) use the same definitions/criteria/categories. Only those who haven't learned to think and judge for themselves based on individual merits of a person need to cling to pre-defined categories, or "steps in the ladder."

quote:Originally posted by deadlycindy:

It ain't the same. That damn "ladder theory" assumes all people (at least, males) use the same definitions/criteria/categories. Only those who haven't learned to think and judge for themselves based on individual merits of a person need to cling to pre-defined categories, or "steps in the ladder."

i really dont believe youve actually read that website. it might be easy to make vague attacks at the theory, but they dont make any sense. what predefined categories? what "steps" are even labeled? steps define how an individual has different levels of attraction for another. you are actually going to argue that this isnt true? you actually believe people dont know people who are very attractive, some mildly attractive and some slightly attractive?

Wow, everyone talking at once. All I have to say is that deadlycindy, like all females, has her own biased opinion and agenda which she tries to impress upon others.

That being said, I will also so that I, as everyone else, also have my own biased opinion. So it goes without saying that nothing will ever be resolved in the man vs. woman fight. Fuck you all.

quote:Originally posted by mrman383:

...you actually believe people dont know people who are very attractive, some mildly attractive and some slightly attractive?

How do you define "attractive"? Do you just mean "physical appearance"?

quote:Originally posted by Corrupt Civilian:

All I have to say is that deadlycindy, like all females, has her own biased opinion and agenda which she tries to impress upon others.



What an assinine generalization. If I have an "agenda" it would be to encourage people to challenge idiotic ideas. I don't think that's a bad thing to "impress upon others."

And, I can manage to do it without resorting to childish profanities.

quote:Originally posted by deadlycindy:

How do you define "attractive"? Do you just mean "physical appearance"?





irrelevent. i suggest reading up on the theory though, otherwise you just sound ignorant. the basics of it ring true. if you want to bitch, be a prude over him exaggerating in a comical, if not insulting way.

^^

Once again, when you're losing ground, you get incomprehensible.

quote:Originally posted by deadlycindy:

^^

Once again, when you're losing ground, you get incomprehensible.

You occasionally present useful, impartial advice. But now you're only hypocritically attacking everyone for their own personal opinions.

quote:Originally posted by deadlycindy:

^^

Once again, when you're losing ground, you get incomprehensible.

whats so tough to understand? my definition of attractive is irrelevent, each person decides that on their own. as i suggested, read the theory. once you have, youll understand the last sentence.

quote:Originally posted by Corrupt Civilian:

You occasionally present useful, impartial advice. But now you're only hypocritically attacking everyone for their own personal opinions.

no, shes just ignorant. she either hasnt read or doesnt understand the theory so she resorts to her usual MO.

I'm not "attacking" everyone. Just moron man 'cause of his annoying illiteracy tactics which make it difficult to read, and thus respond to, his idiotic posts. And you on a minor scale in this thread for making lame generalizations. I wasn't the first one to call bullshit on this theory. Just the first female.

quote:Originally posted by mrman383:

no, shes just ignorant. she either hasnt read or doesnt understand the theory so she resorts to her usual MO.

That's true. Deadlycindy could just be a 12-year-old boy living in his mother's basement and "spewing out" random words on this forum.

Otherwise it's just a waste of her time to sit and continue this pointless argument which even I am wasting my time explaining.

quote:Originally posted by mrman383:

no, shes just ignorant. she either hasnt read or doesnt understand the theory so she resorts to her usual MO.



This website link has been circulating around totse for the past year. I've read it several times and participated in many threads discussing it. This is all the same old shit. There's always some teenage boy who's threatened by females on the forums who have an opinion on anything besides sucking dick. I should have explained that to you before, since you think anything you have to say is breaking ground.

Re-read this thread from the beginning. I repeat: I was not the first to call "bullshit."

quote:Originally posted by deadlycindy:



This website link has been circulating around totse for the past year. I've read it several times and participated in many threads discussing it. This is all the same old shit. There's always some teenage boy who's threatened by females on the forums who have an opinion on anything besides sucking dick. I should have explained that to you before, since you think anything you have to say is breaking ground.

Re-read this thread from the beginning. I repeat: I was not the first to call "bullshit."

like i said, you either havent read it or dont understand it. now we know which it is. not surprising though, you make a habit out of "not understanding" views you dont agree with.

but since you claim to have read it, why dont you explain it. without your angry little comments, what does the theory say. i know its tough not to bitch, but do it just this once.

quote:Originally posted by Corrupt Civilian:

...Deadlycindy could just be a 12-year-old boy living in his mother's basement and "spewing out" random words on this forum.



Sheesh, what a pointless comment. You could be that 12-year-old, anyone here could be. This is the internet.

quote:Originally posted by deadlycindy:

Sheesh, what a pointless comment. You could be that 12-year-old, anyone here could be. This is the internet.

I know, but what an interesting idea it is.

quote:Originally posted by mrman383:

but since you claim to have read it, why dont you explain it. without your angry little comments, what does the theory say. i know its tough not to bitch, but do it just this once.

Another pointless comment. Let's see..I could cop-out like you do and say something like "you just want to bitch, you don't understand so what's the point." Instead I'll point out that even if I hadn't read it I could easily refer to it right now and offer a summary. I'm not going to do something just because some argumentative moron "challenges" me to do so.

quote:Originally posted by deadlycindy:

Another pointless comment. Let's see..I could cop-out like you do and say something like "you just want to bitch, you don't understand so what's the point." Instead I'll point out that even if I hadn't read it I could easily refer to it right now and offer a summary. I'm not going to do something just because some argumentative moron "challenges" me to do so.



Wow, I feel like you're lowering yourself to our level. How flattering.

quote:Originally posted by deadlycindy:

Another pointless comment. Let's see..I could cop-out like you do and say something like "you just want to bitch, you don't understand so what's the point." Instead I'll point out that even if I hadn't read it I could easily refer to it right now and offer a summary. I'm not going to do something just because some argumentative moron "challenges" me to do so.



translation: i cant

i dont care if you go refer to it right now, knock yourself out. if you say youve read it, ill take your word for the sake of argument. i simply dont see you being able to make any kind of logical argument against it. you make vague attacks that do little except display your "its bullshit" opinion.

quote:Originally posted by deadlycindy:



Re-read this thread from the beginning. I repeat: I was not the first to call "bullshit."

quote:Originally posted by deadlycindy:



you do understand that what you just quoted is meaningless? i can call the theory of relativity bullshit. i probably wouldnt be the first person to do so. that doesnt mean i understand the theory or can clearly show why i disagree with it.

Deadlycindy, what is your real purpose in this anyway?

You're repeating "Re-read this thread from the beginning. I repeat: I was not the first to call 'bullshit.'"

Is that your whole reason for arguing?

Mrman could go on for days it seems and is still composed. I on the other hand have things to do, and I hope you do too.

quote:Originally posted by Corrupt Civilian:

Deadlycindy, what is your real purpose in this anyway?

You're repeating "Re-read this thread from the beginning. I repeat: I was not the first to call 'bullshit.'"

Is that your whole reason for arguing?

Mrman could go on for days it seems and is still composed. I on the other hand have things to do, and I hope you do too.

do check back though, this is rather fun. i especially like how she uses the word "league" instead of "ladder" and expresses the exact same theory. i wonder how long she will continue to disagree with herself?

I'm 12....

::Shoobidydoobidy YOU'LL NEVER GET ME LUCKY CHARMS:::

Anyways, this is from a 3rd person perspective. I'm not taking sides, so don't get on my ballsack over this:

The original question was "theBishop posted this in a topic in the religion forum, and I thought I should post it here. What does everyone think about it? Correct/bullshit?"

Deadlycindy responds with HER OPINION, in which she considers it bullshit. Now, the manner in which she stated her opinion was overly harsh. She generalizes by saying that the ladder doesn't apply to 98% of women. She also says it was written by a dipshit and indirectly implies that guys who believe the ladder theory are dipshits.

In comes Corrupt Civilian. He says only gays and females will discredit the ladder theory, and says that the theory makes sense (though is slightly flawed). He acknowledges that the writer seems to be a disgruntled dipshit.

Cindy responds by saying Civilian's opinion is merely the result of being rejected (because you play above your league). Cindy here is hypocritical, in that she acknowledges the existence of the friend ladder. Earlier she clearly discredits the ladder and claims it doesn't apply to her and most other women.

Mrman points out what I just said. Here Trippy McGee comes in with some stupid dribble. He presents his statements intelligently, but is somewhat off topic.

Blah Blah Blah. Corrupt Civilian ends the first page of arguing with a very GOOD post.

My overall opinion: Just as Civilian said, everyone has biased opinions. Regarding specifically the Ladder Theory... it is flawed. Both parties admitted that fact, but continued to argue. Cindy WAS hypocritical in that she discredited the theory completely, and then later acknowledges it (she says the theory is flawed, but the system does exist to some extent). The other debaters made their point, but continued arguing. To continue with this debate is pointless. What are you arguing about now anyways?

Oh yeah, I'm not really 12.



[This message has been edited by TheDragon (edited 02-20-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by mrman383:

do check back though, this is rather fun. i especially like how she uses the word "league" instead of "ladder" and expresses the exact same theory. i wonder how long she will continue to disagree with herself?

I find this lengthy conversation between the three of us very amusing, myself. But I gotta run. Have fun, you two.

No, Cindy is right, it is a bunch of bullshit that morons fall for every month.

[This message has been edited by Guswut (edited 02-20-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by Guswut:

No, Cindy is right, it is a bunch of bullshit that morons fall for ever month.

We can't possibly say that EVERY women follows this pattern. I can vouch for the male ladder, but obviously not the female ladder. I believe the theory was written by a male, so that leaves obvious room for error. However, I do believe the theory's author made accurate observations, as I observe the same thing. Whether his deductions made from his observations are correct couldn't possibly be determined.

This is all about people's oppinions. Arguing about it is utterly retarded because neither opinion can be proved entirely correct.

I vouch for the male ladder theory. For me, that is fact. Unless we get an unbiased female in here who will evaluate her thoughts and emotions truthfully, we won't get an answer.

EDIT: I notice that Civilian kept this as friendy a debate as possible. Kudos

[This message has been edited by TheDragon (edited 02-20-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by TheDragon:

...Cindy WAS hypocritical in that she discredited the theory completely, and then later acknowledges it (she says the theory is flawed, but the system does exist to some extent).

Uh, where did I "later acknowledge it, etc"? I tried to emphasize the whole ladder thing is an issue of perception. It's like astrology: it can be written, it can seem to make sense, and those who wish to believe it will apply it accordingly.

quote:Originally posted by TheDragon:

We can't possibly say that EVERY women follows this pattern. I can vouch for the male ladder, but obviously not the female ladder. I believe the theory was written by a male, so that leaves obvious room for error. However, I do believe the theory's author made accurate observations, as I observe the same thing. Whether his deductions made from his observations are correct couldn't possibly be determined.

This is all about people's oppinions. Arguing about it is utterly retarded because neither opinion can be proved entirely correct.

I vouch for the male ladder theory. For me, that is fact. Unless we get an unbiased female in here who will evaluate her thoughts and emotions truthfully, we won't get an answer.

EDIT: I notice that Civilian kept this as friendy a debate as possible. Kudos

[This message has been edited by TheDragon (edited 02-20-2004).]

If I was talking to a female friend of mine, and she where to go to the bathroom, then come out naked, and asked me if I wanted to fuck her, I would decline because I know that, even though I'd like to, it would ruin our friendship because she is having relationship problems right now, and I know that something like that would only make it worse.

Oh, I guess the ladder cannot account for men that think with their brains, oh well.

quote:Originally posted by deadlycindy:

Uh, where did I "later acknowledge it, etc"? I tried to emphasize the whole ladder thing is an issue of perception. It's like astrology: it can be written, it can seem to make sense, and those who wish to believe it will apply it accordingly.



Bleh. Again, I'm not trying to get into an argument.

But here it is:

Exhibit A: "

Argh, not that infernal crapola again.

As I've said before, that tangle of inaccuracies written by a disgruntled dipshit who aims way out of his league might apply to 2% of women."

That is exactly as you wrote it. You clearly state that you believe the theory applies to very few women. My only assumption is that you are saying it also doesn't apply to you. I regard this statement of yours as discrediting the theory. You DO acknowledge that it exists and does apply to SOME, but for the most part you call it crap.

Exhibit B:

"Yours is just an opinion from yet another guy who tries to play above his league. If you ended up on the "friend ladder" that's just your perception of events. It was simply that she could do better and didn't want to date you."

Here you acknowledge that the friend ladder exists. Since this guy is presumably just an average person, you are saying that the ladder theory applies to most of the average girls he's attempted to be with. If the average girl follows this theory, then that would mean than at least about 50% of women are in accordance with the Ladder Theory.

Another contradictory statement is the constant use of "leagues". Its basically the same concept as ladders. If I'm at the bottom of your Friend ladder, and I try to get with you (that would mean getting on your boyfriend ladder and getting to the top league), then that would be playing out of your league. Other ways of playing out of your league would be being at the bottom of the boyfriend ladder and trying to get with the girl. She is into the guy in the top league, not the lowly first league guy.

quote:Originally posted by Guswut:

If I was talking to a female friend of mine, and she where to go to the bathroom, then come out naked, and asked me if I wanted to fuck her, I would decline because I know that, even though I'd like to, it would ruin our friendship because she is having relationship problems right now, and I know that something like that would only make it worse.

Oh, I guess the ladder cannot account for men that think with their brains, oh well.

This is proof that the theory IS flawed, as EVERYBODY HAS STATED. It is flawed on several points, such as a female can only be friends with a male in specific cases (homosexuality, etc.). It is also flawed in that it generalizes by saying most males would fuck any girl who offered.

Everybody who was debating agreed that the theory was flawed.

(I think that the Ladder Theory alone is most correct. I don't buy all that shit about girls and boys never truly being friends. I don't buy it because I know its not true in most cases. So, from a general viewpoint, as if I just skimmed over the theory, I would agree with it. However, if you follow it entirely, it is very flawed.)

quote:Originally posted by TheDragon:

Bleh. Again, I'm not trying to get into an argument.

But here it is:

Exhibit A: "

Argh, not that infernal crapola again.

As I've said before, that tangle of inaccuracies written by a disgruntled dipshit who aims way out of his league might apply to 2% of women."

That is exactly as you wrote it. You clearly state that you believe the theory applies to very few women. My only assumption is that you are saying it also doesn't apply to you. I regard this statement of yours as discrediting the theory. You DO acknowledge that it exists and does apply to SOME, but for the most part you call it crap.

Exhibit B:

"Yours is just an opinion from yet another guy who tries to play above his league. If you ended up on the "friend ladder" that's just your perception of events. It was simply that she could do better and didn't want to date you."

Here you acknowledge that the friend ladder exists. Since this guy is presumably just an average person, you are saying that the ladder theory applies to most of the average girls he's attempted to be with. If the average girl follows this theory, then that would mean than at least about 50% of women are in accordance with the Ladder Theory.

Another contradictory statement is the constant use of "leagues". Its basically the same concept as ladders. If I'm at the bottom of your Friend ladder, and I try to get with you (that would mean getting on your boyfriend ladder and getting to the top league), then that would be playing out of your league. Other ways of playing out of your league would be being at the bottom of the boyfriend ladder and trying to get with the girl. She is into the guy in the top league, not the lowly first league guy.



uh oh, you are about to be called illiterate.

quote:Originally posted by TheDragon:

This is proof that the theory IS flawed, as EVERYBODY HAS STATED. It is flawed on several points, such as a female can only be friends with a male in specific cases (homosexuality, etc.). It is also flawed in that it generalizes by saying most males would fuck any girl who offered.

Everybody who was debating agreed that the theory was flawed.

(I think that the Ladder Theory alone is most correct. I don't buy all that shit about girls and boys never truly being friends. I don't buy it because I know its not true in most cases. So, from a general viewpoint, as if I just skimmed over the theory, I would agree with it. However, if you follow it entirely, it is very flawed.)

sp0rkius asked if I think it was correct or flawed, I answered, I don't give much of a shit more then that what the rest of you people say, so try and make a relevant point to someone that isn't a level 13 ninja. ( [ ]).

~~~

quote:Originally posted by TheDragon:

Bleh. Again, I'm not trying to get into an argument.

But here it is:

Exhibit A: "

Argh, not that infernal crapola again.

As I've said before, that tangle of inaccuracies written by a disgruntled dipshit who aims way out of his league might apply to 2% of women."

That is exactly as you wrote it. You clearly state that you believe the theory applies to very few women. My only assumption is that you are saying it also doesn't apply to you. I regard this statement of yours as discrediting the theory. You DO acknowledge that it exists and does apply to SOME, but for the most part you call it crap.

Exhibit B:

"Yours is just an opinion from yet another guy who tries to play above his league. If you ended up on the "friend ladder" that's just your perception of events. It was simply that she could do better and didn't want to date you."

Here you acknowledge that the friend ladder exists. Since this guy is presumably just an average person, you are saying that the ladder theory applies to most of the average girls he's attempted to be with. If the average girl follows this theory, then that would mean than at least about 50% of women are in accordance with the Ladder Theory.

Another contradictory statement is the constant use of "leagues". Its basically the same concept as ladders. If I'm at the bottom of your Friend ladder, and I try to get with you (that would mean getting on your boyfriend ladder and getting to the top league), then that would be playing out of your league. Other ways of playing out of your league would be being at the bottom of the boyfriend ladder and trying to get with the girl. She is into the guy in the top league, not the lowly first league guy.



Ok, you proved that you can type more then I'm going to, but my message will have a greater meaning... What are you arguing about anyways, you all agree that it is flawed, give it a rest Dragon.



[This message has been edited by Guswut (edited 02-20-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by Guswut:

Ok, you proved that you can type more then I'm going to, but my message will have a greater meaning... What are you arguing about anyways, you all agree that it is flawed, give it a rest Dragon.



[This message has been edited by Guswut (edited 02-20-2004).]

Yeah, I'll stop here also. I just wanted to state an observation and leave, but I guess getting drawn in is natural.

PS. Don't get an attitude with me because I oppose your little remark. My extensive writing is just a habit I have when I'm on totse. Right now I'm urged to explain, but I'm trying hard not to. Fuck you.

quote:Originally posted by TheDragon:

This is proof that the theory IS flawed, as EVERYBODY HAS STATED. It is flawed on several points, such as a female can only be friends with a male in specific cases (homosexuality, etc.). It is also flawed in that it generalizes by saying most males would fuck any girl who offered.

Everybody who was debating agreed that the theory was flawed.

(I think that the Ladder Theory alone is most correct. I don't buy all that shit about girls and boys never truly being friends. I don't buy it because I know its not true in most cases. So, from a general viewpoint, as if I just skimmed over the theory, I would agree with it. However, if you follow it entirely, it is very flawed.)

its flawed in the sense that there are always going to be rare exceptions. but the girls and guys cant be friends part is rather solid. basically what its saying is that guys who are attracted to a girl will want to sleep with her. it doesnt say they can never be friends (ie in cases where the guy is not attracted to the girl, has something better, is overly relgious or is gay), just that a guy will always want to sleep with an attractive friend. for the most part, this holds true. if a girl is cool enough to be friends with and sexually attractive to a guy who doesnt have a better girl/wife/girlfriend, then the guy will want to fuck her.

just because the theory has its flaws doesnt mean its bullshit. while a few people have called it bullshit, theyve done a poor job of convincing anyone why.

quote:Originally posted by TheDragon:

Yeah, I'll stop here also. I just wanted to state an observation and leave, but I guess getting drawn in is natural.

PS. Don't get an attitude with me because I oppose your little remark. My extensive writing is just a habit I have when I'm on totse. Right now I'm urged to explain, but I'm trying hard not to. Fuck you.



dont get upset, you know how virgins can be. not getting their rocks off in a girl so they get them off by "crushing" people. anyways, im done too. later.

quote:Originally posted by TheDragon:

Yeah, I'll stop here also. I just wanted to state an observation and leave, but I guess getting drawn in is natural.

PS. Don't get an attitude with me because I oppose your little remark. My extensive writing is just a habit I have when I'm on totse. Right now I'm urged to explain, but I'm trying hard not to. Fuck you.



Oh, sorry if I sounded angry, I sometimes get like that at night, but, anyways, this argument is useless, we are both agreeing that the theory is flawed (even if it isn't as flawed as we might think, or more flawed then you think, let us agree to disagree on that aspect).

~~~

quote:Originally posted by mrman383:

dont get upset, you know how virgins can be. not getting their rocks off in a girl so they get them off by "crushing" people. anyways, im done too. later.

You got me there, since I don't get any sex, I masturbate and then go on totse to verbally crush the asses of people that get laid. Oh well, now that you have figured out my fool proof disguise, I'll just laugh in your face some more, hahaha, noob-let.



[This message has been edited by Guswut (edited 02-20-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by TheDragon:

... "If you ended up on the "friend ladder" that's just your perception of events. It was simply that she could do better and didn't want to date you."

Here you acknowledge that the friend ladder exists....



I put "friend ladder" in quotes because I acknowledge the phrase exists. This doesn't mean I lend any credence to it.

Yes, I state the concept of "leagues" as a social phenomenon that's been acknowledged for decades, at least. The "ladder theory" (to make this clear, I acknowledge this theory exists but the fact I typed it out does not mean I "believe in" it) was conceived and written within the context of misunderstanding or not wanting to understand the overall "league" concept. They're separate things.

quote:Originally posted by mrman383:

uh oh, you are about to be called illiterate.

I don't see why, since theDragon at least manages to write coherently. Just because you can't manage simple grammar and punctuation doesn't mean others can't.





[This message has been edited by deadlycindy (edited 02-20-2004).]

The whole idea behind the ladder theory is that there are two league systems rather than one, and this, essentially, is true for both men and women. We have those we think of friends, and those we think of as lovers. Each one has their leagues, and they are two different systems. Each league is a rung of the ladder. On the friends ladder, you have aquaintances, all the way up to people you'd give your life to protect. On the lover ladder, you have minor physical attraction to obsessive love. The major point of the theory that actually makes it cohesive and hold true for most, is that if you are on the friends ladder, and the top league, you CAN attempt the jump to the other ladder. If it succeeds, you may be at the top league on the lovers ladder...if it fails though, you took the risk and are falling from the greatest heights. If you are on a lower league of the friends ladder, and attempt the jump, you don't have as much time in the drop to work with, so you have a greater chance of failing, though if you do you may survive and build a friendship anyways and climb the friends ladder once again.

Whatever the terminology you use is, that is a damned accurate portrayal of friendship and dating. Both ladders are nice to be on, though one is climbed through loyalty and trust, while the other is climbed through power, looks, and carnal pleasures...hence women often having the shy and nice guys at the top league of the friends ladder, with the more aggressive and dominant fellows on the lovers ladder as each personality satisfies a different need. Being animals, women and men love to satisfy carnal urges, which brings about the differentiation in wants for each ladder.

There is the important occasion that the Ladder Theory ignores though, and this is the phenomena of Sexual Maturity. This is when the two league systems merge about halfway up the rungs...just when they are no longer just a friend, and no longer just a boy/girlfriend; the friends league of good friend, and lovers league of partner meld together, and form the rungs that often lead to lifelong relationships. At this point, it is impossible for the one in the highest league to be overtaken, often leading to mairrage or something along those lines. THAT is the main flaw in the Ladder Theory to me...it assumes that sexual immaturity lasts thorughout one's entire life, when it is clear through observation that the majority of men and women realize that the best mate is a combination of friend and lover and meld their leagues into one system.

This is my understanding of leagues, how they fit into the Ladder Theory, and the main flaw of the Ladder Theory. If one acknowledges and repairs the severe flaw of the theory, it can become a rather solid explanation of dating and friendship throughout life.

So it's bullshit. It's a rule based observations based on one guy's experiances with the sexually immature and emotionally irresponsible women he must have a nack for meeting.

Cindy, I have never seen you make this little sense before. You criticize the ladder theory (which I agree with) and then offer almost the exact same theory with the only exceptions being a different name and it is presented from your point of view instead of the author’s. That is why I originally asked what was the difference between leagues and ladders. Here is where you attempted to draw a distinction between them:

quote:Originally posted by deadlycindy:

It ain't the same. That damn "ladder theory" assumes all people (at least, males) use the same definitions/criteria/categories. Only those who haven't learned to think and judge for themselves based on individual merits of a person need to cling to pre-defined categories, or "steps in the ladder."

But at the same time you assume that men who believe in ladder theory do so by playing outside their league all the time. That is only possible if there are universal leagues. If all women have learned to “think and judge for themselves based on individual merits of a person” then there would be no universal leagues. You would never know if a woman was “out of your league” unless you took the time to get to know them (hit on them). All you did was take pretty much the exact same theory, changed the name, and presented if from your point of view instead of the author’s.

The problem with the ladder theory is also a problem with league theory. You were right when you said the problem was that it assumes universal standards too much. There are some universal standards, but they are not absolute. There is enough play in there that both theories need to be modified to allow for all the exceptions. However, ignoring the ladder or league or whatever you call it would also be a mistake.

(yeah, I know that the ladder theory had a friend ladder which you are disputing, but it really is just a difference in semantics between ladder theory and leagues...they are still the same theory.)

quote:Originally posted by sp0rkius:

So it's bullshit. It's a rule based observations based on one guy's experiances with the sexually immature and emotionally irresponsible women he must have a nack for meeting.

Bingo. Such a concise summary was completely escaping me.

Upon rereading this thread, it's clear we're arguing semantics. Admittedly, I made a lot of leaps in my comments simply because I've debated these points before and didn't think to fill in all the details for the n00bs.

When I referred to "leagues" I did mean the more broadscale, "universal" concept. All I meant to say is that the "ladder theory" was written, possibly in a fit of bitterness, by a young man who constantly tried and failed to transcend his "league". And by "league" there I mean general social standards. Basic, broad example: a guy in his 30s who has worked the same dishwashing job for 5 years is in a different league from an attorney who washed dishes while in law school and now litigates for a prestigious firm.

Then, the part about the "ladder theory" not applying to (what I believe is) the majority of females who judge a person based on individual merits didn't have anything to do with "leagues." That was a separate statement.

But as many here have concluded, most here are in agreement that the "theory" is flawed. So if "proving me wrong" based on semantics disputes is important to some people, those people need better things to do. This "debate" has become pointless since the focus has shifted away from the actual subject to issues of rhetorics. Plus, it's impossible to take some people seriously since their posts reflect a general attitude of "asshole-ism" as a way of relating to people. Enjoy yourselves, boys.

[This message has been edited by deadlycindy (edited 02-21-2004).]

If the majority of females judge guys on individual merit on not on league, then why is playing out ones league an issue here?

You kinda flipped your position on what league is. At first you said an attractive woman would reject a dude that was not in her league because she could do better...now you are defining “league” more like “class” and you’re saying women use other factors besides league.

I understand that the author's point of view is that of frustration from rejection, but that does not make him wrong. He is wrong for other reasons. You can't just change the name of his theory and say that that is the reason he is wrong. That makes no sense. The degree to which he is incorrect is the same that league theory is incorrect because they are the exact same thing.

I am sorry if you see posting on totse as a waist of time. Yeah, I got a few things I could be doing, but debating shit is fun for me. BTW, you’re out of your league here.

quote:Originally posted by deadlycindy:

Bingo. Such a concise summary was completely escaping me.

Upon rereading this thread, it's clear we're arguing semantics. Admittedly, I made a lot of leaps in my comments simply because I've debated these points before and didn't think to fill in all the details for the n00bs.

When I referred to "leagues" I did mean the more broadscale, "universal" concept. All I meant to say is that the "ladder theory" was written, possibly in a fit of bitterness, by a young man who constantly tried and failed to transcend his "league". And by "league" there I mean general social standards. Basic, broad example: a guy in his 30s who has worked the same dishwashing job for 5 years is in a different league from an attorney who washed dishes while in law school and now litigates for a prestigious firm.

Then, the part about the "ladder theory" not applying to (what I believe is) the majority of females who judge a person based on individual merits didn't have anything to do with "leagues." That was a separate statement.

But as many here have concluded, most here are in agreement that the "theory" is flawed. So if "proving me wrong" based on semantics disputes is important to some people, those people need better things to do.

once again, this is covered by the theory. the dishwashing bit is covered under money and power. seems to me the people who like to call bullshit here are just dismissive. part of it is a lack of understanding but most is just dismissive. everything youve said in this entire post has been in agreement wit the ladder theory. "leagues", "individual merit", etc are all covered by the theory. also, when many people here are saying the theory is flawed, that doesnt mean we believe the theory is wrong. there are simply minor points where the author made concrete statements where he needed flexibility. also, to completely dismiss the author because you think hes bitter is just ignorant. thousands of men have agreed with the theory, whether or not they have even read it.

quote:Originally posted by Easy Going:

If the majority of females judge guys on individual merit on not on league, then why is playing out ones league an issue here?

You kinda flipped your position on what league is. At first you said an attractive woman would reject a dude that was not in her league because she could do better...now you are defining “league” more like “class” and you’re saying women use other factors besides league.

I understand that the author's point of view is that of frustration from rejection, but that does not make him wrong. He is wrong for other reasons. You can't just change the name of his theory and say that that is the reason he is wrong. That makes no sense. The degree to which he is incorrect is the same that league theory is incorrect because they are the exact same thing.

I am sorry if you see posting on totse as a waist of time. Yeah, I got a few things I could be doing, but debating shit is fun for me. BTW, you’re out of your league here.

i really dont see the guy writing that out of frustration or bitterness caused by rejection. i just see a guy trying to explain how he (and many others) view the male/female relationship. other than that gus guy, no one here has yet pointed out a specific flaw. i grant that he did find one. the author states that he should want to sleep with that girl. assuming he is being honest, then the author is wrong in that instance. however, gus is a very rare exception which may be why he was not included.

i think the problem here may be too many people misinterpreting the actual ladder. they see it as a concrete object created by the author. this is not true, every person has their own "ladder(s)" and ranks individuals based on their own tastes. again, to deny that one may find some people very attractive, some mildy attractive, some slightly attractive and some not attractive at all is just silly. otherwise attraction would be an on/off switch where you are either 100% attracted or 100% not attracted.

the other part people seem to be confused on is the female friends ladder. they see it as someone being pissed about rejection. however the concept is biological. while males (not just human either) tend to have the urge to mate with as many healthy females as possible, females are drawn to stability and family. the female has the natural instinct to keep a male around to provide and protect herself and the offspring as well as provide the community. it only takes simple observation to see this.

Exactly.

Everyone has a ladder with various rankings. Men's rating is very simple and based on who they would like to fuck (which usually translates to attractiveness, in earlier ages at least).

At the very least, you guys shuold agree these rankings exist. Otherwise you are saying you want to fuck every girl you like equally. I find this HIGHLY unlikely. Admit it, there is a girl with a nice ass, big tits, but a fucked up face. Chances are you'd hit it as long as no one found out.

(NOTE: Most of this reasoning and ladder shit applies to young guys who are horny and looking for a hot girl. Think ages 15-24. I would hope that a 30 year old guy would be more mature)

Women also have ladders. Given that they think more emotionally than guys, and are just overall more complex, of course they have a different ranking system.

I honestly don't see why someof you call this ladder bullshit. At the very least one should accept it at a basic level. If you get into the "males are never truly a female's friend" shit, then the theory becomes flawed.

Another thing to keep in mind is that this theory obviously applies to a certain age group. Do you honestly believe that an average 50 year old will still be shallow, superficial, etc. That type of stuff is for when you are, as I said before, young, horny, and hungry for hot girls. If we narrow this theory down to guys when they are at their most shallow (15-24) then I would say this theory has few flaws.

Lastly, absolutely ZERO theories regarding psychology and social characteristics are 100% accurate. There will ALWAYS be a number of people who don't follow the trend.

The idea behind the theory is that it applies to MOST people.

quote:Originally posted by TheDragon:

If you get into the "males are never truly a female's friend" shit, then the theory becomes flawed.

even that youd have to agree with to a point. can they be friends? perhaps. does the guy want to be friends and ONLY friends with an attractive girl while he does not have a better one? doubtful. most guys would like to fuck her.

So does making friends with a girl make you unattractive to her? Is that sort of thing best to be avoided? Are girls not attracted to nice guys? These are all statements made by the theory, but are they true?

Sporkius, the ladder theory, as presented at IW, is incomplete and only takes the emotionally immature into account. If you read my post (I think you did), I ammend the original with the ladder system that is eventually created once the men and women reach emotional and sexual maturity* (For men, usually around age 25-30, women, 25-40).

*meaning fair knowledge and capability to control emotions and sexuality, and know what situations cause which reactions; this paired with a respect for others' emotions and sexuality.

quote:Originally posted by sp0rkius:

So does making friends with a girl make you unattractive to her? Is that sort of thing best to be avoided? Are girls not attracted to nice guys? These are all statements made by the theory, but are they true?

these are all things you can see for yourself. just observe the world around you. who do girls tend to fuck? guys who have been the comforting emotional friend or the good looking guy with a nice car? which kind of guys get treated to listening to her emotional problems and maybe some long hugs?

purpose of the theory is to recognize when you become the emotional tampon and to simply walk. theres also advice on how to avoid being put into that situation.