Poll: Friendship between Men and Women or The Ladder Theory
- Thread starter Dragoonit
- Start date
No, it was a theory put together by bitter men and internet virgins. The fact is nothing women do can be distilled down into a logical theory like this. I'm sure other people could post countless ancedotes about cases where a girl did not like them at first but grew to like them later. For example, I was friends with a girl in college for over 2 years, and neither of us liked the other when we first met, but later on in our friendship the sexual tension between us became unbearable and we ended up dating for over 8 months.
However, I do not waste my time hoping for such an event to occur. If I'm pursuing a girl and she doesn't seem interested back, I simply drop her and move on.
However, I do not waste my time hoping for such an event to occur. If I'm pursuing a girl and she doesn't seem interested back, I simply drop her and move on.
Honestly this smacks of Freud Effect to me.
The linked article indicated theres no actual data to back this up and is likely based on anecdotal evidence. While that is certainly not empirical or actually scientific it does not inherently make it wrong either. Sort of the "Stereotypes exist for a reason" methodology.
There seemingly has to be some degree of evidence for this theory to even exist, even if its simply that of observation and detecting reoccuring patterns.
Im not saying its right or wrong. I see some very inherent flaws with it, but I can also see points of validity in it. However, I cant help but to feel like as I said before that alot of the responses in regard to this are a part of that Freud effect. The notion set forth seems offensive, and as such natural reaction is to recoil against it because it seems offensive. Just because people do not openly wish to admit their baser actions and desires because of the light it would color someone if openly said does not diminish their existence. To put it another way, all too often people behave like something controversial offends them, even though they know it doesnt, simply because they dont want to be seen as shallow, selfish, greedy, insensitive, or any other sort of negative light. Its a part of reinforced self image. We project one likeness of ourselves to the public, that can often be contradictory to are actual thoughts and feelings.
Regardless, I can see enough validity in what is asserted to perhaps begin actual testing to validate or disprove the hypothesis, but without actual evidence one way or the other, its basically no different than any other form of postulation. So, If nothing else, I am inclined to side on the side of the ladder, because Im not seeing any sort of proof that outright disproves it or conflicting theory that has any more validity than this does, and beyond that I can at least see SOME logic behind the theory.
The linked article indicated theres no actual data to back this up and is likely based on anecdotal evidence. While that is certainly not empirical or actually scientific it does not inherently make it wrong either. Sort of the "Stereotypes exist for a reason" methodology.
There seemingly has to be some degree of evidence for this theory to even exist, even if its simply that of observation and detecting reoccuring patterns.
Im not saying its right or wrong. I see some very inherent flaws with it, but I can also see points of validity in it. However, I cant help but to feel like as I said before that alot of the responses in regard to this are a part of that Freud effect. The notion set forth seems offensive, and as such natural reaction is to recoil against it because it seems offensive. Just because people do not openly wish to admit their baser actions and desires because of the light it would color someone if openly said does not diminish their existence. To put it another way, all too often people behave like something controversial offends them, even though they know it doesnt, simply because they dont want to be seen as shallow, selfish, greedy, insensitive, or any other sort of negative light. Its a part of reinforced self image. We project one likeness of ourselves to the public, that can often be contradictory to are actual thoughts and feelings.
Regardless, I can see enough validity in what is asserted to perhaps begin actual testing to validate or disprove the hypothesis, but without actual evidence one way or the other, its basically no different than any other form of postulation. So, If nothing else, I am inclined to side on the side of the ladder, because Im not seeing any sort of proof that outright disproves it or conflicting theory that has any more validity than this does, and beyond that I can at least see SOME logic behind the theory.
As a female, I don't think men think only with their dicks. A show I once saw about sex said that since men can have sex with many women and reproduce fast, they are more willing to have sex. Meanwhile, women have to go through the process of carrying a baby, delivering it, nursing it, etc. So they are more picky about who they choose. This may have changed with condoms and other birth controls, but that's how it usually works.
So basically, guys may not always look at a woman sexually, but this means they are more open to having sex than woman usually are, not counting prostitutes. Besides, my sister has a lot of male friends that she doesn't think of in a sexual way. They're just friends. Of course, pretty much all of those friends are fat, and I know she likes tall and thin guys.
So basically, guys may not always look at a woman sexually, but this means they are more open to having sex than woman usually are, not counting prostitutes. Besides, my sister has a lot of male friends that she doesn't think of in a sexual way. They're just friends. Of course, pretty much all of those friends are fat, and I know she likes tall and thin guys.
no I find it pretty flawed in plenty of ways
but it kinda portrays women in a negative light more saying they care more about money and power and looks than anything elseEdorf said:
I may be misunderstanding this. As a heterosexual male this theory says I only have one "ladder", does this mean I rate all my male friends on how much I want to have teh gaybutsex with them?
I'm going to vote "yes" because I've never had a female friend I haven't at least once looked at and wondered if I'd like to sleep with them. Even those female friends I love dearly and would never dream of making a move on. Guess I am just wired that way.
I'm going to vote "yes" because I've never had a female friend I haven't at least once looked at and wondered if I'd like to sleep with them. Even those female friends I love dearly and would never dream of making a move on. Guess I am just wired that way.
Theories pretty retarded because all the males here can think of female friends whom they don't have a romantic interest in.
What i will say is, and this person neatly explains why:
The ladder theory is grounded in some truth, but it takes the whole notion of men having a more relaxed attitude to sex and relationships to reductio ad absurdum.
What i will say is, and this person neatly explains why:
Males are more easy going about sex and relationships than females are. Unless a female was A)Incredibly ugly, or B)The guy had good reasons not to want a relationship (e.g-not single) then if a female was forward enough she could arouse romantic interest from most males. However, females are more picky about sex and whom they have relationships with for reasons stated above.Kuroneko97 said:
The ladder theory is grounded in some truth, but it takes the whole notion of men having a more relaxed attitude to sex and relationships to reductio ad absurdum.
Sorry to ask, but why not?baddude1337 said:
She's your best friend, so I assume you communicate very well, and enjoy spending time together. That's what you should have in a relationship isn't it?
It's a bit personal to ask, I know, but I'm facing a similar problem right now. I'd like the view of the opposite side
I agree.Kasurami said:
Life isn't that simple!
There are other things that need to be taken into account here. Like the whole spectrum of human emotion. You can't just lump everything into these two categories and then just deny everything else!
No.Dragoonit said:
This is the sort of stuff people think up because they feel a need to rationalise away personal responsibility for their own failures. Rather than admitting the hard truth that maybe some girls just don't like them, they have to think up stuff like this in order to feel better about their deep-seated fears of being a basement-dwelling freak with no idea about how to communicate with the opposite gender. It's just pure misogynist bullshit and it comes from the same ideological no-man's-land as "bros before hoes".
This is an oversimplification based on the myth that all men think about is sex. Seriously.
Yes, attractiveness matters in life (sadly), but really now, we've already disproved that cross-gender friendships are possible.
Hypotheses are proven wrong by a single invalid example. We've put forth way too many. Disproven. Done.
Yes, attractiveness matters in life (sadly), but really now, we've already disproved that cross-gender friendships are possible.
Hypotheses are proven wrong by a single invalid example. We've put forth way too many. Disproven. Done.
No, the theory is an absurd oversimplification. People often have many different mixed motivations for the things they do, and not all possible motivations are acted upon. This theory also assumes that there can only be one single motivation for any engagement with the opposite sex, which would set it apart from just about every other type of human action for no concrete reason. It's not even a disprovable/testable hypothesis because you can't prove that someone took an action for one motivation over the other.
This is no different then the half baked theories we produce in class (studying psychology), except we actually have to do an experiment to support our crappy theory after.
From the article: There is no clinical or scientific evidence to support Ladder Theory. Lynn claims that the theory is "based upon many years of sociological field testing."
This is basically an admission to the article being a load of rubbish. No evidence whatsover? Not even qualitative experiments that would at least support "sociological field testing".
As it stand sociological field testing is short for "random idea i had the other day" since no experiment of any kind has been done beyond in the authors head.
This isn't the way sociology works, you gotta have at least something to back you up otherwise you're acting in an unethical manner.
From the article: There is no clinical or scientific evidence to support Ladder Theory. Lynn claims that the theory is "based upon many years of sociological field testing."
This is basically an admission to the article being a load of rubbish. No evidence whatsover? Not even qualitative experiments that would at least support "sociological field testing".
As it stand sociological field testing is short for "random idea i had the other day" since no experiment of any kind has been done beyond in the authors head.
This isn't the way sociology works, you gotta have at least something to back you up otherwise you're acting in an unethical manner.
All this talk of this and that - from the male perspective it's absolutely true.
In a world devoid of consequence I would like to have sex with every attractive woman I know.
The only female friends I have that I don't want to have sex with are those I deem not attractive enough but whose personalities are complimentary to my own...you know what, I'll fucking say it: "No Fatties."
All these guys saying how they have deep intellectual reasons are either afraid their girlfriend will read their posts or are impotent.
Tits and Ass rule, no matter how much I love Girl A, I would bend over her friend Girl B in a heartbeat if I knew Girl A wouldn't be hurt by my actions.
The only thing keeping me from doing that is my own personal sense of Jiminy Cricket...and fear of STDs and unplanned pregnancies.
In a world devoid of consequence I would like to have sex with every attractive woman I know.
The only female friends I have that I don't want to have sex with are those I deem not attractive enough but whose personalities are complimentary to my own...you know what, I'll fucking say it: "No Fatties."
All these guys saying how they have deep intellectual reasons are either afraid their girlfriend will read their posts or are impotent.
Tits and Ass rule, no matter how much I love Girl A, I would bend over her friend Girl B in a heartbeat if I knew Girl A wouldn't be hurt by my actions.
The only thing keeping me from doing that is my own personal sense of Jiminy Cricket...and fear of STDs and unplanned pregnancies.
I've heard this theory before, but it is worded differently.
In the version I read it was more along the lines of...
Men have one ladder in a sense that they are more open to a friendship devoloping into a relationship should circumstances change where as women tend to be more absolute from an earlier stand point, deciding whether they would prefer to just be friends or somthing more, hence two ladders. And the conclusion they drew from that was that in heterosexual friendships that there was possibility of there always being somthing there between men and women, as opposed to a friendship never working out.
But still it's just another of the many psychological theories floating around in the world yet to be proven and probably never will be.
In the version I read it was more along the lines of...
Men have one ladder in a sense that they are more open to a friendship devoloping into a relationship should circumstances change where as women tend to be more absolute from an earlier stand point, deciding whether they would prefer to just be friends or somthing more, hence two ladders. And the conclusion they drew from that was that in heterosexual friendships that there was possibility of there always being somthing there between men and women, as opposed to a friendship never working out.
But still it's just another of the many psychological theories floating around in the world yet to be proven and probably never will be.