Sentox6 said:
The 100 IQ club has quite a sizeable membership, you know.
Indeed, it does, as does the demographic of those who lack self awareness. I take you regard yourself a member?
All this really indicates is an adjustment to the rating systems based upon age (and perhaps IQ, by your assertion). It doesn't necessarily refute the core concept of the theory.
The rating systems assume that the sole interest men have for women is sexual (which is terribly misandrist as well). This presents a problem because women are, in fact,
whole human beings, and when one sums up the activities of one's life, actual fucking is really a small portion of it. The idea that men exclusively think of women as penis-puppets is about as offensive as the idea that women think of men exclusively as cash-cows.[footnote]These stereotypes may sometimes reflect truth, but thankfully far less than otherwise. To be sure, men that really do only relate to women sexually tend to just not get laid at all, but they do illustrate the need for our complex courting rites, and those processes get extended with every failed date.[/footnote]
Uriel-238 said:
And the Ladder Theory doesn't explain athletes, artists and rockstars...
Sentox6 said:
Sure it does. They inherently come under the same category as the outlaw biker: men with novelty and/or power.
Danzaivar said:
Err, yes it does. There's variables for novelty, and money is synonymous with power. Athletes, artists and rockstars have unmatched power within their social groups...
Artistic ability is not the same as social power, such as the ability to command others, or to have someone honored or scorned by the community. Athletic ability simply takes health prerequisite for sexual eligibility up to eleven. But artistic ability has that attraction element of its own. Of course, if you redefine
power to equate to whatever
Mojo or
je ne sais quoi you want, then you can adapt the ladder model to suit (or mean) anything.
But you, know, my point was that human beings are a bit more complex than is represented by the ladder theory, or the idea of the friend-zone, and regarding those you consider mating potential as people first, and armpieces second might get you farther along towards partnering up.
Or, not. And not.
Addendum: Just because the forum has formatting codes doesn't mean you have to use them quite so gratuitously. Less is more.
I assume you're referring to my commentary footnotes? I so like to go off on tangents, I just can't help myself and this keeps it out of my maintext. Still, the fact that you had to comment on (criticize?) my signature seems to indicate you were, at this point, looking for nits to pick, rather than focusing on that with which you don't agree, and why.
238U.
idk I've been friendzoned 2 times I guess and i do think it exists. 
