Girls, have you ever wondered why guys seem like they only want
sex? Guys, have you ever wondered how to get sex?
There’s a theory, the “ladder theory,” which
has recently been spreading across college campuses like a good
case of mono. It has even infected the faraway reaches of Norway
and Australia, according to creator Dallas Lynn.
And like a good case of mono, it’s got a lot of upsetting
side effects. But decide for yourself.
With section titles such as “Yes Virginia, They All Want
to Bang You” and “The Deconstruction of
Attraction,” the ladder theory is a breath of fresh realism
for the cynical souls of both genders.
The foundation of ladder theory is an explanation of the rating
systems made by men and women for anyone with the opposite
genitalia.
For men, she’s rated mostly by looks and the likelihood
she’ll ignore how awful you are and have sex with you anyway.
For women, he’s rated mainly on money and power, followed by
looks.
The other essential part of ladder theory is, of course, the
ladders. A man has only one ““ on which every woman he meets
is placed with respect to the all-important rating of how much he
would like to sleep with her.
A woman has two ““ the “real ladder,” on which
she rates men whom she would sleep with, and the dreaded
“friends ladder,” which is pretty self-explanatory.
Some men will try to jump ladders with witty phrases like,
“Have sex with me now.” Surprisingly, this rarely
works.
Instead, that man is thrust down into the “abyss,”
which exists below all ladders. Like purgatory and my
mother’s apartment, it is a land bursting at the seams with
self-loathing and a requisite period of utter awkwardness with the
girl.
Guys: To avoid this place, if the girl ever likens you to a
teddy bear or calls you the brother she never had, be warned
““ you’re on a one-way train to no-sex. Terribly
sorry.
Ladder theory, however, fails to take into account variation in
women’s motivations. For some women, the above-mentioned wit
is enough. For others, their morals will always win out.
For men, ladder theory is much simpler. An example: Bob meets
Ingrid. Bob wants to have sex with Ingrid. Then Bob meets Gloria.
Gloria is hotter than Ingrid. Bob wants to have sex with Gloria
more than with Ingrid.
Gloria is placed higher on the ladder than Ingrid.
But this does not mean that Bob no longer wants to have sex with
Ingrid. Given the choice, he would rather have Gloria. But Gloria
may feel that other guys look better and have more money than Bob,
forcing him to settle for Ingrid.
Now, since blasphemers, mostly women, against ladder theory have
said, “But wait, I’m hot and I don’t get
laid,” the ladder theory makes some excuses. Researchers have
found only three reasons a man can be friends with a woman (without
benefits).
One. He’s gay.
Two. The girl’s ugly.
Three. He’s already got a girl higher up on his
ladder.
There are also exceptions made in the ladder theory for
religious folk (less sex, more wishing for sex), drunken folk
(settle for lower ladder ratings) and desperate folk (settle for
way lower ladder ratings).
“Conveniently, the ladder theory answers the oft-asked
question, “˜What is the purpose of life?'” writes
Lynn. The answer, of course, is to always try to have sex with
hotter girls or richer guys.
Now, ladder theory may catch hold especially well on college
campuses, where the single life and rampant sex drives hold sway.
But the theory is just too narrow.
People are not that one-dimensional. In fact, if reality were
divided into ladders, it’s more likely it would look like
something out of Escher’s nightmares ““ only more
confusing.
In the maze of human emotions and drives that move us all, we
have to factor in all sorts of things that ladder theory simplifies
out of the equation. Intelligence, humor and loyalty, to start.
Ladder theory needs to revise its faith in people. While money
gives us a run for our money, there are a whole mess of people I
know who care about more than just looks and power. Well,
there’s that one couple down the hall.
Unless they’ve broken up.
The point is that ladder theory is an excursion into
stereotyping. It’s got applications, but it doesn’t
hold for all people.
What about those social misfits who like others for their brain,
their humor, or other ratings not based on the Benjamins and
Willies?
They deserve an award to recognize their valiant struggle
against Darwin. In fact, the I Don’t Just Care About Sex
award should be respected by libidos everywhere.
And where better for the beauty of caring about bigger and
better things to take hold than at UCLA.
So I hereby dedicate the first annual I Don’t Just Care
About Sex award to those kids down the hall. Hope they’re
still together.
Schenck is a first-year pre-communication studies student.
E-mail him at jschenck@media.ucla.edu.