I can’t believe the Ladder Theory is being discussed on Piggington. Some fun thoughts on the theory based on discussions with friends.

The ladder theory is really a glimpse into a larger complex theory, analogous to Newtons rudimentary understanding of gravity as a starting point towards understanding general relativity. Let’s start with the women ladders. First, the good ladder is really composed of many ladders inextricably joined together, with each ladder representing a specific need. The male brain, because of its primitive state, is unable to discern the entire ladder bundle, and only sees the good ladder. Sorry boys, no free ride. Pioneers like radio personality Tom Leykis makes a living explaining the mechanics of ladder theory via the tenets of Leykis 101, but also attempts to take it one step farther by devising innovative techniques to detach the good ladder from the bundle in order to achieve the ultimate goal of a booty call. He tries to achieve this by maximizing disparity – exhibit wealth, induce low self-esteem, show no interest, as well as be entertaining.

Men also have two ladders as well, not one. Unlike the parallel ladder system of females, mens ladders are vertical. The upper ladder is where potential long term partners are placed, but one must ascend the lower ladder to its apex in order to have a shot at reaching the upper ladder. Whereas the lower ladder hierarchy is determined by (60% looks, 40% willingness, and 10% misc), many men make the fatal mistake of assigning no further criteria to reach the upper ladder. In effect, these men marry for beauty. The result is typically a bad union with many ending in divorce. The marriages that last are usually a result of pure luck in selecting the right mate since most men don’t know what they were doing, me included. On a serious note, the correct criteria for the upper ladder should be reallocated to 40% looks and 60% cool chick factor. I define the cool chick factor as a loose compilation of attributes that includes among other things, the ability to handle extreme adversity with calmness (grit), the willingness to sacrifice without hesitation, no sense of entitlement no matter how much wealth or social status is accumulated, a positive easy going attitude unconcerned with minor dislikes (i.e. no honey do list or nagging), and a continual awareness not to take their mate for granted. Not sure if I articulated this point clearly, but this kind of rare woman can be guaranteed their partners will love and cherish them forever, even after the looks fade. It is difficult to identify these women as people change continuously throughout their life. The person you met 20 yrs ago is as different 10 yrs ago as she is today.

I fully understand the disdain for marriage by men due to its destructive nature upon failure. Like many, I support the marriage certificate as a symbolic document used for public declaration of mutual love and commitment. There should be very limited legal consequences with the exception of child support. Aside from this detail, the issue really boils down to the pros and cons of an uncommitted versus a committed relationship. Sure it’s great to have many partners and the conversations may be engaging, but this can also get boring over time, and unfulfillng especially as one gets older. The one thing that makes life tolerable is intimacy and I don’t believe it’s possible to build real and ever increasing intimacy unless you are in a committed relationship. Do men need or want intimacy? Probably not and everyone is wired differently, but once truly experienced, there is no substitute imo, similar to the unconditional love one feels for their children, or the brotherhood formed by soldiers who face death together in the battlefield. My vote goes on the committed relationship side.