HedgeDoc - Collaborative markdown notes

<h1 class="entry-title" style="text-align: center;">Ladder Theory: Revised and Revisited</h1> <img src="https://media.istockphoto.com/id/1354932066/es/foto/trabajo-carrera-ambici%C3%B3n-collage-de-arte.jpg?s=612x612&w=0&k=20&c=Yc31cuJzLkVWb34B6EmvjsGd_f1iqb-deQuNGCMjsfI=" alt="" width="800" /> Before the hodgepodge of blogs now known as the manosphere sprung into existence, Dallas Lynn drafted an explanation of why some men get laid while others get nowhere. Dubbed “ladder theory,” it’s the funniest analysis of human sexuality to date. “Ladder theory” is <a href="http://www.laddertheory.com/" target="_blank">documented on this site</a>, complete with bizarre diagrams and goofy clip art. So, I won’t bother getting into its intricacies according to the original author. Instead, I’ll describe its basic premise then reveal my own spin on it. According to Lynn, men and women have different ways of mentally categorizing potential sexual partners. <h2>Man’s single ladder</h2> A man’s selection map is visualized as a ladder, hovering over an abyss. It’s a hierarchy structure with the most desirable females at the top of the ladder and the least attractive at the bottom. Women he won’t have sex with (even while inebriated) or rejects, slip into the dust bin (“the abyss”). <blockquote> 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. Clinging to the bottom are the girls that are wolf ugly. These are women so ugly you would chew your own arm off to get away rather than fuck them. Usually fake teeth, or the loss of several hundred pounds can move a woman up from wolf ugly. </blockquote> <h2>Woman’s dual ladder</h2> Women use a similar hierarchical ranking system but have two ladders floating over an abyss instead of just one. Friend-zoned men she won’t have sex with are placed on one ladder. The guys she is genuinely interested in romantically are put on the “real ladder.” <blockquote> The problem arises because a woman never lets a guy know which ladder he is on. Obviously there is a huge difference, or gap between these two ladders. It is in this gap that kisses of death are delivered and intellectual whores are made. All a man can do is “go for it” and make a move on a girl; ask her out, try to kiss her, write her a love note or whatever. If he’s on the good ladder fine. If he is on the friends ladder this is a case of ladder jumping. The man is trying to jump the gap from the friends ladder to the real ladder. The girl has two choices at this point: she can let him on the ladder and all is well, or, more likely, she can kick him in the head, and off the ladder. If you look you’ll see that below the ladder is the Abyss (what was it Nietzsche said about a man being on a rope stretched over an Abyss?….well it’s worse than he thought; there is no rope.) So the man falls into the Abyss. The Abyss isn’t really as bad as it sounds. Mostly it’s a period of self-loathing, embarrassment, and of course utter awkwardness with the girl in question if they are talking at all. </blockquote> Although some claim it’s entirely satire, “ladder theory” is very close to hitting the mark. At the very least it’s an accurate depiction of sexual selection through the male lens. A women’s “friends ladder” is a construct that helps us delve into the female psyche. Women themselves will deny its existence, as friend-zoned men hold very little mind share for them. I reckon that the “friends ladder” is legitimate but unconsciously formulated, while the “real ladder” is something they’re aware of. This makes sense when you consider that women have male friends that obviously want to bang them, but are deluded enough to believe otherwise. They have no sexual interest, so they feel more comfortable assuming he feels the same. <h2>Variations on “ladder theory”</h2> Alex Wise from the <a href="https://www.loveawake.com/">Loveawake dating site</a> wrote a great critique, finding the single ladder an inaccurate representation of how men rank women. He argues that men actually have three ladders: <blockquote> Male ladder 1 (ML1) is for women a man would consider seriously dating and/or marrying. Male ladder 2 (ML2) is for women with whom a man desires sex but has no intention of committing his personal energy and resources to. For a typical man, ~70% of women are eligible for ML2 (subject to taste). ML3 is for everybody else – unusually ugly women, seriously dysfunctional personalities, damaged goods, body types you don’t like, your best friend’s sister, etc. In this respect, male sexuality is more complicated than its female counterpart. </blockquote> <div id="attachment_492" class="wp-caption alignleft"> Wifey material. </div> Like women, us men may be categorizing partners more than we’re consciously aware of. One ladder doesn’t account for the separation of those only suitable for a roll in the hay and those we’re driven to nest with. Women that are placed on ML1 and ML2 are judged on vastly different criteria. The woman you desire most sexually may be fun to party with, but is incredibly high-maintenance, has a nasty cocaine habit, etc. (ML2). The top girl you deem wife (or at least relationship) material, needs to be agreeable, have some sense, and display characteristics that make her a good potential mother (ML1). Whether you want to reproduce or not is irrelevant, it comes down to biology. In this case, <a href="https://blog.loveawake.com/2021/02/08/the-poor-mans-guide-to-attraction/">attraction</a> alone isn’t enough. Although women are known for their initial discretion, men have prudence when it comes to pair bonding and commitment. It’s not in the best interest of the species for men to settle down with a crazy, irresponsible bitch, no matter how good her genes are. The men that make this mistake do so because of a perceived lack of options or laziness. For laughs, my version introduces edge dwellers. Why bother with a third ladder when you have the abyss analogy to play with? Undesirables and those deemed off-limits sit along its rim. Here there is little need for hierarchy (thus no ladder), as these women aren’t sexual prospects. Many aren’t poorly regarded. They’re plutonic acquaintances out of principal (ex. best friend’s sister, co-worker). Admirers men won’t even screw while drunk are in a sort of limbo-land of their own design as they’re not on a ladder but aren’t in the abyss either. The man is doing very little to keep these admirers around, if anything. The abyss itself is reserved for one-night-stands, and ex-girlfriends who were either pushed or let go of the ladder. Men typically don’t latch on to women they’re not attracted to in order to leech <a href="https://blog.loveawake.com/2020/11/03/how-to-retain-a-healthy-relationship/">emotional support</a>. For this reason men don’t have a friend zone ladder like women do. It’s not because we’re any less cruel. It’s because we can’t be bothered. An occasional ego boost isn’t worth all that hassle. Additionally, the time could be spent with a lady we want to bang, which are plentiful. <h2>This guy must be as hungry as I am</h2> I’ll close with a neat little analogy from the Badger, explaining why men are more accepting of sexual partners. It’s not because our standards are lax. It’s because we crave variety. <blockquote> … the male sexual preference is more like a pizza pie, with different toppings on every slice. Depending on what’s available and the mood he’s in, he might prefer Hawaiian, meat lover’s, barbecue chicken, no sauce or some wacky pizza kink. Variety is like what they say about sex, even when it’s not that good, it’s still pretty good – which is why you sometimes see guys having affairs with women who are shirley not as hot as their wives. </blockquote> I’m thinking he meant surely and not Shirley… Freudian slip?