# Female ranking system



## Fozzy

I just read a link in a post Machiavelli put up that went into a quite extensively detailed list of the male socio-sexual hierarchy. I honestly had no idea there were so many categories beyond "alpha" and "loser".

Here's my question: Is there a similar ranking system for women (maybe specifically used BY women, in the way men rank ourselves/each other)? I've been reading for a LONG time about alpha's, beta's and the like, but I don't recall anything similar for the ladies.


----------



## DoF

I don't agree or believe in any kind of "labeling". Humans are way to complex and there is way too many variables to limit it to "few".

Also, I'm not exactly sure how any of that relates to long term relationships. Your average "alpha" is probably not the best marriage material if you know what I mean......

Read: it's just bunch of BS


----------



## Faithful Wife

Of course! We have:

The Awesome Level

The Most Excellent Awesome Level

and then

The Best Most Excellent Awesome Level ever!

Most women are in one of these three scientific categories.


----------



## Jellybeans

Science!


----------



## Hope1964

Fozzy said:


> I just read a link in a post Machiavelli put up


I stopped reading after that.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

I think the alpha term is used to describe a females more and more. Never heard beta applied to a female by another female though.

As for other ranking systems,I have no idea.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

Hope1964 said:


> I stopped reading after that.


:rofl:


----------



## Fozzy

Not saying I subscribe to any of it, but I honestly find it interesting that we guys seem borderline obsessed with the social competition between each other to the point where we categorize each other. Do women just have a radically different perception of social status? Or has nobody just ever taken the time to blog about it?


----------



## Pamvhv

You know what level I hate. Perfect Pinterest Mom. I want to burn all their perfectly crafted parties to the ground.


----------



## survivorwife

Pamvhv said:


> You know what level I hate. Perfect Pinterest Mom. I want to burn all their perfectly crafted parties to the ground.



:rofl: :lol: :rofl:

Love it!


----------



## Ikaika

TAM ladies and non-TAM ladies. You decide how you would like to label each


----------



## ScarletBegonias

Pamvhv said:


> You know what level I hate. Perfect Pinterest Mom. I want to burn all their perfectly crafted parties to the ground.


:rofl::rofl:

When looking at those things,I take comfort in knowing I can craft mad crazy cool stuff perfectly...I just choose to not do it.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

Fozzy said:


> Not saying I subscribe to any of it, but I honestly find it interesting that we guys seem borderline obsessed with the social competition between each other to the point where we categorize each other. Do women just have a radically different perception of social status? Or has nobody just ever taken the time to blog about it?


I think ladies are competitive with each other but I don't think we have such neat little concise labels.


----------



## Pamvhv

I look at it like this. I can spent 30 hours making felt owls or I can buy felt owls and spend 30 hours hanging with my kid.


----------



## Ikaika

ScarletBegonias said:


> I think the alpha term is used to describe a females more and more. Never heard beta applied to a female by another female though.
> 
> As for other ranking systems,I have no idea.



Last night my wife was alpha getting the kids into bed on time... Then this morning she is sweet and ask me to fix the oven because she thinks it is running colder than normal. She is correct btw, took out my Vohm meter, damn $65 switch is burnt out, ugh. When I'm coaching a bunch of 11 and 12 year olds this Sunday on the gridiron . When my wife is shopping, look out she is fierce. 

Circumstances, circumstances, circumstances.


----------



## coffee4me

ScarletBegonias said:


> I think ladies are competitive with each other but I don't think we have such neat little concise labels.


Sure we do: stay at home mom- working mom


----------



## MSP

Women play socio-political games way more than men and they absolutely rank each other in their heads. My mother actually told me this stuff when I was quite young and clueless. She also told me that women mostly dress to compete against other women, rather than to impress men. Several women I've talked to have since said the same thing. 

And talk to an overweight girl sometime and hear how much she feels judged by thinner girls. This may or may not be the case--I am not in their shoes--but they certainly feel like it is. Or talk to a girl who doesn't have the money to shop for expensive clothing and how she feels when hanging out with a group of rich girls. 

Men rank each other by achievement and physical strength and that's about it. For women, it's looks, husband, kids, parenting ability, age, popularity, income, and whatever the heck else. Wanna know how to gauge a women's rank? Listen to the topics that come up when other women gossip about her.


----------



## over20

I think females rank each other hands down on beauty. I don't like it at all but it does exist. It started when we were little and continues into old age.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

coffee4me said:


> Sure we do: stay at home mom- working mom


ugh,yeah forgot about those. Or maybe traumatic discussions caused me to block them out


----------



## DoF

over20 said:


> I think females rank each other hands down on beauty. I don't like it at all but it does exist. It started when we were little and continues into old age.


You mean like "she is a complete ***** and I hate her cause she looks better than me" or "she is SO nice/I like her cause I'm prettier/look better"?


----------



## ScarletBegonias

MSP said:


> Women play socio-political games way more than men and they absolutely rank each other in their heads. My mother actually told me this stuff when I was quite young and clueless. She also told me that women mostly dress to compete against other women, rather than to impress men. Several women I've talked to have since said the same thing.
> 
> And talk to an overweight girl sometime and hear how much she feels judged by thinner girls. This may or may not be the case--I am not in their shoes--but they certainly feel like it is. Or talk to a girl who doesn't have the money to shop for expensive clothing and how she feels when hanging out with a group of rich girls.
> 
> Men rank each other by achievement and physical strength and that's about it. For women, it's looks, husband, kids, parenting ability, age, popularity, income, and whatever the heck else. Wanna know how to gauge a women's rank? Listen to the topics that come up when other women gossip about her.


OP wants to know the labels though.It's no question that women rank,rate,and place each other in little boxes but what labels are on those boxes? Men have alpha,beta,etc. What are women?


----------



## Pamvhv

I stay at home and work. I get flack from both of those sets.


----------



## Ikaika

Clueless old male person here... Totally don't get it. I will just read


----------



## NobodySpecial

Faithful Wife said:


> Of course! We have:
> 
> The Awesome Level
> 
> The Most Excellent Awesome Level
> 
> and then
> 
> The Best Most Excellent Awesome Level ever!
> 
> Most women are in one of these three scientific categories.


You forgot the level above all those levels. ME!


----------



## over20

DoF said:


> You mean like "she is a complete ***** and I hate her cause she looks better than me" or "she is SO nice/I like her cause I'm prettier/look better"?


Exactly! You are good!


----------



## Faithful Wife

http://elitedaily.com/women/alphafemale-betafemale/


----------



## over20

Pamvhv said:


> I stay at home and work. I get flack from both of those sets.


Boy I am sorry you have to endure flack on both sides. For what it is worth I am happy you have that opportunity. Win Win


----------



## Pamvhv

over20 said:


> Boy I am sorry you have to endure flack on both sides. For what it is worth I am happy you have that opportunity. Win Win


Right? I love working from home.


----------



## MSP

ScarletBegonias said:


> OP wants to know the labels though.It's no question that women rank,rate,and place each other in little boxes but what labels are on those boxes? Men have alpha,beta,etc. What are women?


Ah, right. I'm slow today.


----------



## MSP

Pamvhv said:


> Right? I love working from home.


Gives you more Pinterest time.


----------



## Entropy3000

Fozzy said:


> Not saying I subscribe to any of it, but I honestly find it interesting that we guys seem borderline obsessed with the social competition between each other to the point where we categorize each other. Do women just have a radically different perception of social status? Or has nobody just ever taken the time to blog about it?


There are both similarities and differences.

My job is to repopulate the planet with my genes.

Her job is to find the best genes for her smaller number of potential children. She may choose a mate to help her raise her children.

While this is a tad bit of oversimplification we do see this in the real world if we know what to look for. Men and women can be equal in many ways. But we are not identical. That would be very messed up.


----------



## survivorwife

ScarletBegonias said:


> OP wants to know the labels though.It's no question that women rank,rate,and place each other in little boxes but what labels are on those boxes? Men have alpha,beta,etc. What are women?


Stepford Wife
Soccer Mom


----------



## ScarletBegonias

survivorwife said:


> Stepford Wife
> Soccer Mom


that's kinda what I was thinking too 

in context w/additional labels :

"oh it looks like little soccer mom valley girl stepford sex bunny ran out of lube last night..she seems a little crunchy grumpy today.tsk tsk..poor dear.life's hard."


----------



## bobbieb65

All you have to do is turn on the TV to see this...all those "housewife" and all those shows. I don't personally watch, would rather talk to my MIL then watch that crap. But I've seen enough clips because they are everywhere. I also have witnessed close knit groups of gal-pals do this and even go beyond and rank outsiders...like anyone cares what they think.


----------



## Ikaika

Faithful Wife said:


> http://elitedaily.com/women/alphafemale-betafemale/



So,if I were single I would have to choose between the two?


----------



## Fozzy

Faithful Wife said:


> The Alpha Female & Beta Female


A-HA! I knew somebody would have stuck some labels somewhere!


----------



## survivorwife

ScarletBegonias said:


> that's kinda what I was thinking too
> 
> in context w/additional labels :
> 
> "oh it looks like little soccer mom valley girl stepford sex bunny ran out of lube last night..she seems a little crunchy grumpy today.tsk tsk..poor dear.life's hard."



:lol:

Yep. I do believe that's how we ladies label other ladies, while speaking amongst us ladies. 

Wonder if the men will be able to decode all that. :rofl:


----------



## Fozzy

:rofl:


ScarletBegonias said:


> that's kinda what I was thinking too
> 
> in context w/additional labels :
> 
> "oh it looks like little soccer mom valley girl stepford sex bunny ran out of lube last night..she seems a little crunchy grumpy today.tsk tsk..poor dear.life's hard."


----------



## Lon

wait... us guys rank each other?

I thought we basically put it all on the women to define our ranking of sexual desirability, and that the numbers basically play out by themselves?

I also thought that most guys are pretty aware that for all but a few outliers, we are largely able to determine our own rank by the way we act - though many just don't feel motivated or compelled to.

I know how I rank women in my own mind, I have a number scale model that works seemingly instinctually, but I am learning that it is in my best interest to keep it entirely to myself, and probably not even mention that I have one (but what can I say, I'm too honest for my own good sometimes).

I'm wondering more, WHY you want to know this Fozzy? Thinking of switching genders?


----------



## Faithful Wife

Fozzy is asking about female ranking among other females, higher, lower, etc.

Sex rank is about a female's rank according to her attractiveness to men.

An alpha male or female could be a high or low SR. There is no correlation (even though those who follow those stupid rules think there is).


----------



## Ikaika

Faithful Wife said:


> Fozzy is asking about female ranking among other females, higher, lower, etc.
> 
> Sex rank is about a female's rank according to *her attractiveness to men.*
> 
> An alpha male or female could be a high or low SR. There is no correlation (even though those who follow those stupid rules think there is).



I thought that just required a pulse and the ability to fog a mirror


----------



## DoF

Pamvhv said:


> I look at it like this. I can spent 30 hours making felt owls or I can buy felt owls and spend 30 hours hanging with my kid.


Well, to their defense.......it's not the destination, it's the journey to get there.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

The basic terms apply the same to women. You'll notice in groups of women, there is still a distinct social hierarchy. The terms just describe an individual's dominance relative to the group they're being compared with. It takes all of 5 minutes to determine which female is the dominant of the group. And just like some males adopt a lone wolf strategy and tend to not have many male friends (I forget the term... I think they call this omega? -really just a subset of beta), so too do some females. They tend to not have many female friends, have mostly male friends, and will often say they don't like females because they're catty or whatever: Competition and conflict avoidant --> beta.

Don't know why everyone gets so uptight about the terms. Its all relative.


----------



## Fozzy

Lon said:


> wait... us guys rank each other?
> 
> I thought we basically put it all on the women to define our ranking of sexual desirability, and that the numbers basically play out by themselves?
> 
> I also thought that most guys are pretty aware that for all but a few outliers, we are largely able to determine our own rank by the way we act - though many just don't feel motivated or compelled to.
> 
> I know how I rank women in my own mind, I have a number scale model that works seemingly instinctually, but I am learning that it is in my best interest to keep it entirely to myself, and probably not even mention that I have one (but what can I say, I'm too honest for my own good sometimes).
> 
> I'm wondering more, WHY you want to know this Fozzy? Thinking of switching genders?


Nope, I'm happy on the team I'm currently playing for.

As far as leaving it up to women to rank us...I can guarantee it wasn't a woman that came up with Alpha/Beta/Gamma/Epsilon and so forth.

The whole Alpha/Beta thing, even if one doesn't subscribe to it, seems to be the most commonly used labeling system for men. What I'm hearing is that while women do rank each other, sometimes savagely, there's no one "system" that seems widely used.


----------



## Cosmos

Jellybeans said:


> Science!


You've gotta love it


----------



## Faithful Wife

drerio said:


> I thought that just required a pulse and the ability to fog a mirror


Not sure if this is a joke or not but, really? We are scrutinized on a sex rank numbering system of 1 to 10 based on nothing but looks. So yeah no, "pulse only" doesn't even get you a .5 sex rank.

But the same *MEN* who use the ranking system to rank their own sex rank include things other than looks. Because SCIENCE!!!!!


----------



## Ikaika

Faithful Wife said:


> Not sure if this is a joke or not but, really? We are scrutinized on a sex rank numbering system of 1 to 10 based on nothing but looks. So yeah no, "pulse only" doesn't even get you a .5 sex rank.
> 
> But the same *MEN* who use the ranking system to rank their own sex rank include things other than looks. Because SCIENCE!!!!!



It was a joke as I see all these specific rankings and maybe I made it in poor taste. Sorry if it offended anyone. I guess that make me pretty beta.


----------



## Fozzy

Faithful Wife said:


> Not sure if this is a joke or not but, really? We are scrutinized on a sex rank numbering system of 1 to 10 based on nothing but looks. So yeah no, "pulse only" doesn't even get you a .5 sex rank.
> 
> But the same *MEN* who use the ranking system to rank their own sex rank include things other than looks. Because SCIENCE!!!!!


The guys I hang with definitely use more than just looks on the 1 to 10 scale, believe it or not. Looks definitely weigh heavy on it, but personality can really make or break it. Sometimes you might peg someone at a 7 or 8...until they speak.


ETA: the converse is also true. Sometimes you get a +2 or +3 for just being awesome.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Yes Fozzy, the men I know are that way as well.

Because they aren't douche canoes.


----------



## Lon

Faithful Wife said:


> Fozzy is asking about female ranking among other females, higher, lower, etc.
> 
> Sex rank is about a female's rank according to her attractiveness to men.
> 
> An alpha male or female could be a high or low SR. There is no correlation (even though those who follow those stupid rules think there is).


Thanks for pointing it out, when I read "rank" it slipped my mind that we were talking sociosexual hierarchy, and I tend to generally dismiss the words "alpha" and "beta". But I see that is what this thread is actually about (well, the whole hierarchy and greek alphabet not just A/B - so gammas, omegas, sigmas, yada yada).

Personally I never thought that hierarchy ever actually applied to women, even though I see many people trying to apply that model onto them. It can be useful as descriptors, but not as a social value system I think (that is why my mind went to the sex rank system, because to me that is the most equivalent comparison for the female gender - and even though it is largely superficial and based on "looks" it has a lot more to do with just weight, height and dimensions - has more to do with style, attitude and ability to match up their looks to the persona that comes through the strongest).


----------



## Created2Write

I personally don't "rank" people at all. I either respect someone, or I don't. I either love someone, or I don't. I either like someone, or I don't. I either befriend someone, or I don't. I either like working with someone, or I don't. I either think someone is physically attractive, or I don't. I either think someone is an awesome person, or I don't. But those are the only ranks I apply to people.


----------



## FrenchFry

:rofl: That ranking website took me all the way back to middle school.


----------



## Ikaika

I think we have our own likes and dislikes when it comes to the opposite sex. I tend towards internal "rankings" some of which may seem superficial to some but important to me. It is nonetheless multifaceted. The complexity built into designing such a ranking is to artificial for me.

Ranking = attraction correct?


----------



## Faithful Wife

Sex rank = sexual attraction numerically placed on women based on looks only, on men based on looks plus other things

And remember....some dude-bro came up with this. So I'm just saying it the way THEY do.

What I think about a person's sexual attraction and how it is determined is totally different, but I've had the pleasure (cough, gag) of reading what the dude-bro's call Sex Rank.


----------



## FrenchFry

90's/ early 2000s Ranking:

Samantha/Charlotte/Carrie/Miranda
Which one!!!


----------



## MSP

Created2Write said:


> I personally don't "rank" people at all. I either respect someone, or I don't. I either love someone, or I don't. I either like someone, or I don't. I either befriend someone, or I don't. I either like working with someone, or I don't. I either think someone is physically attractive, or I don't. I either think someone is an awesome person, or I don't. But those are the only ranks I apply to people.


10/10! 

I've never in serious conversation assigned a numerical rank to a person of either sex. That said, making categorized comparisons is the human way of life. Maybe I'm the odd one out. Hmm. I wonder where that ranks me?


----------



## Faithful Wife

FF: Me and my gals were Charlie's Angles, instead.

Drew/Lucy/Cameron


----------



## Ikaika

FrenchFry said:


> 90's/ early 2000s Ranking:
> 
> 
> 
> Samantha/Charlotte/Carrie/Miranda
> 
> Which one!!!



Who? I don't recognize anyone.


----------



## Ikaika

Faithful Wife said:


> FF: Me and my gals were Charlie's Angles, instead.
> 
> Drew/Lucy/Cameron



Only Lucy on that list, simply don't find the others to my personal preference.


----------



## Fozzy

drerio said:


> I think we have our own likes and dislikes when it comes to the opposite sex. I tend towards internal "rankings" some of which may seem superficial to some but important to me. It is nonetheless multifaceted. The complexity built into designing such a ranking is to artificial for me.
> 
> Ranking = attraction correct?


I'm more looking at "pecking order". Relative attractiveness as compared to other members of your own sex may or may not play into it.


----------



## Fozzy

Faithful Wife said:


> FF: Me and my gals were Charlie's Angles, instead.
> 
> Drew/Lucy/Cameron


Betty and Veronica?


----------



## Faithful Wife

Lol! Actually my BFF and I growing up were Betty and Veronica...one of us is blonde and the other brunette. But did we look like those hotties when we were 12? Ha, NO!

Now, maybe a little.


----------



## Lon

Faithful Wife said:


> Sex rank = sexual attraction numerically placed on women based on looks only, on men based on looks plus other things
> 
> And remember....some dude-bro came up with this. So I'm just saying it the way THEY do.
> 
> What I think about a person's sexual attraction and how it is determined is totally different, but I've had the pleasure (cough, gag) of reading what the dude-bro's call Sex Rank.


I don't think there are any prequalifiers to SR, it is simply on a scale of 1-10 how sexually desirable a person is (which begins the moment you lay eyes on them and continues for as long as you know of them ever after... and of course it is dynamic).

I think sociosexual hierarchy attempts to rank VALUE above and beyond, but also inclusive of sexual attraction.

And while each person has their own way to stereotype the people in the world around them, on the macro level I think the idea of assigning rank is also a statistical measure of something more quantifiable (as lousy as the implications of this are).


----------



## Created2Write

The whole notion of sex rank based on looks and money is ridiculous to me. People have sex for a myriad of different reasons and with a myriad of different kinds of people. "Ranking" people in an attempt to identify why someone is or isn't having sex only serves to put people in an ill conceived box to make the one doing the ranking feel more comfortable. It implies that if someone isn't having sex, there must be something wrong with them, an idea that leaves no room open for individual choices and standards. 

There are many people I've known in my life who I wouldn't have given the time of day, but there isn't a number or rank I assigned to them. It was simply that I knew we would be horrible together. In fact, some of them were very nice individuals and there wasn't anything _un_attractive about them. So, as far as ranks go, they would have been higher in number. And yet, they had zero chance of actually being with me, because I don't buy into the sex rank notion.


----------



## Lon

Created2Write said:


> The whole notion of sex rank based on looks and money is ridiculous to me. People have sex for a myriad of different reasons and with a myriad of different kinds of people. "Ranking" people in an attempt to identify why someone is or isn't having sex only serves to put people in an ill conceived box to make the one doing the ranking feel more comfortable. It implies that if someone isn't having sex, there must be something wrong with them, an idea that leaves no room open for individual choices and standards.
> 
> There are many people I've known in my life who I wouldn't have given the time of day, but there isn't a number or rank I assigned to them. It was simply that I knew we would be horrible together. In fact, some of them were very nice individuals and there wasn't anything _un_attractive about them. So, as far as ranks go, they would have been higher in number. And yet, they had zero chance of actually being with me, because I don't buy into the sex rank notion.


And likewise, I think the idea of trying to assign and rank "social value" is ridiculous. But we humans apply our filters all the time and unfortunately just because something is ridiculous doesn't mean it is always avoidable.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Lon, I'm describing what the douche canoe team says, not what I say about those matters. 

If you are talking about your opinion with "I don't think there are any qualifiers..." then great, I get ya.

But as for the douche crew, it is how I described it and yes the only qualifier is some kind of objective beauty standard that doesn't exist (for women only, not men). There are many blogs and articles and such stating the sh*t over and over.


----------



## Ikaika

Faithful Wife said:


> Lon, I'm describing what the douche canoe team says, not what I say about those matters.
> 
> If you are talking about your opinion with "I don't think there are any qualifiers..." then great, I get ya.
> 
> But as for the douche crew, it is how I described it. There are many blogs and articles and such stating the sh*t over and over.



I totally steppers into the wrong thread. I am lost and don't understand... I know what I like personally (It is very complicated) and did not realize some complex hierarchy existed. Hmmm


----------



## Faithful Wife

Oh yes, drerio....there are big blogs and books will thousands of followers who detail exactly this crap...both the social heirarchy and the sex rank crap.

Here's some total crap for you to read on this subject, or don't (won't blame you if you don't, it is crap afterall)

Relative Sex Rank vs True Sex Rank | Married Man Sex Life


----------



## Lon

Faithful Wife said:


> But as for the douche crew, it is how I described it and yes the only qualifier is some kind of objective beauty standard that doesn't exist (for women only, not men). There are many blogs and articles and such stating the sh*t over and over.


yes I agree completely, there are unlimited number of sources of douchery on the internet.

So to me, as it is applied to men, the sociosexual hierarchy (alpha/beta/gamma/omega etc) is an attempt to classify a man's social value and categorize there position in this world, is it not?

If so, then what equivalent is there for women? Is it the exact same model? Same model but with slightly different ways of slotting different women into different castes? Is it SR (the more encompassing way as I described it, not the douchecrew method)? or something else that our society uses to file different women into different categories that determines what utility they will be expected to serve?


----------



## treyvion

Created2Write said:


> The whole notion of sex rank based on looks and money is ridiculous to me. People have sex for a myriad of different reasons and with a myriad of different kinds of people. "Ranking" people in an attempt to identify why someone is or isn't having sex only serves to put people in an ill conceived box to make the one doing the ranking feel more comfortable. It implies that if someone isn't having sex, there must be something wrong with them, an idea that leaves no room open for individual choices and standards.


Sex-rank is an attempt to make a system by which people tend to rank others. It shows that there are things you can do to increase your attractiveness and other things that can decrease it.

I agree with working with things you can control, knowing how they work and then doing what you can about it. You shouldn't put your life around it, but if you realilzed that with little effort you can systematically improve your overall attractiveness why wouldn't you do it?


Created2Write said:


> There are many people I've known in my life who I wouldn't have given the time of day, but there isn't a number or rank I assigned to them. It was simply that I knew we would be horrible together. In fact, some of them were very nice individuals and there wasn't anything _un_attractive about them. So, as far as ranks go, they would have been higher in number. And yet, they had zero chance of actually being with me, because I don't buy into the sex rank notion.


The whole thing about sex rank is people do it without realizing what they are actually doing! But others do have rank systems similar to what was described in the Athol Kay MMSL.


----------



## Jung_admirer

Fozzy said:


> The guys I hang with definitely use more than just looks on the 1 to 10 scale, believe it or not. Looks definitely weigh heavy on it, but personality can really make or break it. Sometimes you might peg someone at a 7 or 8...until they speak.
> 
> ETA: the converse is also true. Sometimes you get a +2 or +3 for just being awesome.


I like the 10 point scale, but I think about it a little differently at midlife: 

Physical (1-10 pts) sex rank stops here...
Spiritual (1-10 pts)
Intellectual (1-10 pts)
Emotional/Psychological (1-10 pts)
Social (1-10 pts)

How many people do you know that would rate better than a 6?


----------



## Ikaika

Faithful Wife said:


> Oh yes, drerio....there are big blogs and books will thousands of followers who detail exactly this crap...both the social heirarchy and the sex rank crap.
> 
> Here's some total crap for you to read on this subject, or don't (won't blame you if you don't, it is crap afterall)
> 
> Relative Sex Rank vs True Sex Rank | Married Man Sex Life



How about I just remain alpha to my lovely bride and she be my alpha lady. I wouldn't have it any other way.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Is that a real question, Jung? My husband and I would both rank 9's on your list. You think that's rare? I know many fine people who are very high on the list you created.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> *And just like some males adopt a lone wolf strategy and tend to not have many male friends (I forget the term... I think they call this omega? -really just a subset of beta*)


 I believe this is the *SIGMA male*.. see below...

For a break down.. (for the guys anyway).... 



> The *Alpha Traits* are those associated with classic “manly man” strengths. Power, dominance, physical ability, bravery, wealth, cool and confidence. Oh and good genes. These are the things that attract women and turn them on sexually. The Alpha Traits are linked to the dopamine response in women.
> 
> *Alpha *= attraction building = Dopamine = In Love = Excitement





> The *Beta Traits* are those associated with the strengths of being a nice guy / “family man”. Kindness, being a good listener, the ability to help with the children, dependability, thoughtfulness, compassion and patience. These all create a sense of comfort and safety for the woman, and relax her because she feels that if she became pregnant, the Beta Trait male isn’t going to abandon her and the baby.
> 
> *Beta *= comfort building = Oxytocin / Vasopressin = Pair Bond = Calm Enjoyment"


So Alpha Traits create attraction and that “in love” feeling, and Beta Traits create the pair bond and makes her feel relaxed enough to have sex. You need a balance of both Alpha and Beta in a marriage to maximize her desire to have sex with you.



> *Delta Males*: These kind of guys put off a good front of acting like they're "Alpha males" by conforming into whatever is fashionable and admired by the masses. Most of these men (if you can call them that) need a lot of assurance by society to the point of having little backbone to think for themselves. Sure, many Delta males are surrounded by "friends" and are good at get their fair share of girls by "wooing" them with some pop-culture nonsense (whether it's A&F-style gauche preppiness or poser hip-hop wannabe thuggishness), but that crowd and attention is more imperative for their self-esteem than anything else. For if you take away all of the girls from them and get these same males by themselves, a Delta male's personality completely changes and their "true self" is revealed. Many of these kind of guys are rather weak-minded, crowd-pleasing, conformists who aren't even worthy of the name "Covert Betas" and "Betas in the Closet."





> *Gamma Males*: These kind of dudes are more or less self-reliant, self-motivated, and self-assured in their own personality that no one can change their ways. Some of these kind of males are considered loners, but this is not to case for all Gamma Males. Because of their stern personality, many people tend to write off these men as "Betas" by default because they won't conform to being whatever "Chic Alpha" trait exists during that time period.
> 
> The man who's confident in his own self-worth and looks is said to go a long way with what women want. But as for recent times (I'll say since the early 2000s), most females are more impressed with being "wooed" with inane attributes, something that most Gamma males will refuse to do unless their original personality is what woos the female. These men, until recently, have had no problems getting with "American females" but recently, even these males are getting thrown in the "weak male" shelf because of their lack of conforming to the masses.
> 
> Though getting women - even in today's time - isn't as much of a problem as it is for the "stereotypical Alpha Male," this is still a concern for quite a few Gamma males who were either born too recent (those in their teens and twenties) or those who live in areas where narcissism and American pop-culture rule the minds of the masses.





> *Lambdas* - the gays. They have their own social hierarchy. They can fill any role from Alpha to Omega, but they tend to play the part rather than actually be it because the heterosexual social construct only encompasses the public part of their lives. Example: Neil Patrick Harris. Suggestion: Straights will be more tolerant if you keep the bathhouse behavior behind closed doors.





> *Sigmas* - the lone wolves. Occasionally mistaken for Alphas, particularly by women and Alphas, they are not leaders and will actively resist the attempt of others to draft them. Alphas instinctively view them as challenges and either dislike or warily respect them. Some Deltas and most Omegas fancy themselves Sigmas, but the true Sigma's withdrawal from the pack is not a reaction to the way he is treated, it is pure instinct. Example: Clint Eastwood's movie persona. Suggestion: Entertain the possibility that other people are not always Hell. The banal idiocy is incidental, it's not intentional torture.





> *Omegas* - the losers. Even the Gamma males despise them. That which doesn't kill them can make them stronger, but most never surmount the desperate need to belong caused by their social rejection. Omegas can be the most dangerous of men because the pain of their constant rejection renders the suffering of others completely meaningless in their eyes. Omegas tend to cluster in defensive groups; the dividing line between the Omega and the Sigma is twofold and can be easily recognized by a) the behavior of male Betas and Deltas and b) the behavior of women. Women tend to find outliers attractive in general, but while they respond to Sigmas almost as strongly as they do to Alphas, they correctly find Omega males creepier and much scarier than Gamma males. Example: Eric Harris Suggestion: Your rejection isn't entirely personal. Observe the difference in your own behavior and the way the Betas act. And try not to start off conversations with women by sharing "interesting facts" with them.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Lon said:


> If so, then what equivalent is there for women? Is it the exact same model? Same model but with slightly different ways of slotting different women into different castes? Is it SR (the more encompassing way as I described it, not the douchecrew method)? or something else that our society uses to file different women into different categories that determines what utility they will be expected to serve?


The douche crew seem to think females have no heirarcy value. Their only value is sex rank.


----------



## Ikaika

Faithful Wife said:


> Is that a real question, Jung? My husband and I would both rank 9's on your list. You think that's rare? I know many fine people who are very high on the list you created.



My wife is an 11


----------



## Entropy3000

drerio said:


> My wife is an 11


----------



## Ikaika

Entropy, I dig that movie


----------



## Lon

*Re: Re: Female ranking system*



Faithful Wife said:


> The douche crew seem to think females have no heirarcy value. Their only value is sex rank.


That's because they are still too testosterone fueled to think ahead far enough to realize these women, once impregnated by the douche's seed, will be the mothers to their children, the queen of their kingdoms and gatekeepers of their long term intimacy needs.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Unless a better man comes by...then she'll follow her true wh*re hypergamy instincts and dump the beta chump.


----------



## TiggyBlue

Faithful Wife said:


> The douche crew seem to think females have no heirarcy value. Their only value is sex rank.


Well it works massively in their favor IF that was true.... you can't blame them for trying


----------



## Lon

*Re: Re: Female ranking system*



Faithful Wife said:


> Unless a better man comes by...then she'll follow her true wh*re hypergamy instincts and dump the beta chump.


Sadly, yes sometimes this is true (even when the douche settled for a 7 thinking it will keep her firmly enslaved to his undeniabily superior ability to satisfy her in bed)


----------



## TiggyBlue

Faithful Wife said:


> Unless a better man comes by...then she'll follow her true wh*re hypergamy instincts and dump the beta chump.


Hypergamy makes sense with women who get with men for money, if their is the same job going with better pay many people would take it (and from my experience women who do get with guys because of money do view their relationship as a job).


----------



## Faithful Wife

But tiggy, according to the douche team, ALL WOMEN are hypergamous wh*res. Not just gold diggers, ALL WOMEN.

And is it any wonder that the dudes who came up with this sh*t are bitter about not getting laid a lot? :rofl:


----------



## Entropy3000

Created2Write said:


> The whole notion of sex rank based on looks and money is ridiculous to me. People have sex for a myriad of different reasons and with a myriad of different kinds of people. "Ranking" people in an attempt to identify why someone is or isn't having sex only serves to put people in an ill conceived box to make the one doing the ranking feel more comfortable. It implies that if someone isn't having sex, there must be something wrong with them, an idea that leaves no room open for individual choices and standards.
> 
> There are many people I've known in my life who I wouldn't have given the time of day, but there isn't a number or rank I assigned to them. It was simply that I knew we would be horrible together. In fact, some of them were very nice individuals and there wasn't anything _un_attractive about them. So, as far as ranks go, they would have been higher in number. And yet, they had zero chance of actually being with me, because I don't buy into the sex rank notion.


On the one hand I get the sex rank in the Athol Kay sense. BUT, for me there are a whole set of attributes that bring the wood. I am not impressed by super model types at all. You have sex with the woman. She needs to be mentally home.


----------



## Created2Write

Lon said:


> And likewise, I think the idea of trying to assign and rank "social value" is ridiculous. But we humans apply our filters all the time and unfortunately just because something is ridiculous doesn't mean it is always avoidable.


I'm assuming that you mean it's sometimes natural to assign a sexual rank to someone? If you mean the likelihood that you'd have sex with someone based on your initial thoughts the first moment you see them, then yeah...I guess it's hard to avoid doing that if you're consciously thinking about who you would or wouldn't sleep with every time you step outside. I believe people interact with each other for more reasons than finding potential sexual partners, and I believe that someone could have a high sexual rank and have absolutely no chance of seducing the person they're pursuing.


----------



## Lon

*Re: Re: Female ranking system*



TiggyBlue said:


> Hypergamy makes sense with women who get with men for money, if their is the same job going with better pay many people would take it (and from my experience women who do get with guys because of money do view their relationship as a job).


Hypergamy happens when women rank a man to get with for his social value. And just like douchey guys are all over the place sex ranking based on looks, so are many hypergamy [email protected] out there weighing their options... I have seen many women go through a phase after having kids where they begin to focus on themselves again and up their own perceived value, even explicitly stated they are better then their H's then proceeded to cheat and leave their marriages. (Though I am admittedly hyper sensitive to that particular issue)


----------



## Faithful Wife

No Lon, that is not what the douche team says. They say ALL WOMEN are hypergamous. They do not say "just the gold diggers".


----------



## treyvion

Lon said:


> Hypergamy happens when women rank a man to get with for his social value. And just like douchey guys are all over the place sex ranking based on looks, so are many hypergamy [email protected] out there weighing their options... I have seen many women go through a phase after having kids where they begin to focus on themselves again and up their own perceived value, even explicitly stated they are better then their H's then proceeded to cheat and leave their marriages. (Though I am admittedly hyper sensitive to that particular issue)


Some of us men don't solely use looks as our selector. The reason is the looks could've been groomed to trap a dummy who only uses looks for a criteria. So you have to look at the total package.

And if you want good sex, a sort of "look" isn't going to guarantee that, plus if she's sex ranked her self up to the moon, she might not feel you are on her level and the sex and interaction will be terrible.


----------



## Entropy3000

Faithful Wife said:


> No Lon, that is not what the douche team says. They say ALL WOMEN are hypergamous. They do not say "just the gold diggers".


Bell curve


----------



## Created2Write

treyvion said:


> Sex-rank is an attempt to make a system by which people tend to rank others. It shows that there are things you can do to increase your attractiveness and other things that can decrease it.


I get that. And I am all for personal development and bettering one's self, but for the right reasons. Anyone who changes themselves merely to be more attractive to the opposite sex and up their chances of having sex is setting themselves up for failure, imo. Example: I've tried working out so I could be hot for my husband. He's in much better condition than I am, and I wanted to look like I belonged with him. Now, I've never been overweight or obese. There was nothing wrong with how I looked. So, I tried for two years to go to the gym and work out, but my heart wasn't in it at all. It wasn't until I started going to the gym _for myself_, and to improve actual physical ability rather than just look a certain way, that I got somewhere. 

If a guy wants to be more confident, or more outgoing, more power to him. But it should be for _him_, not anyone else or anything else. 



> I agree with working with things you can control, knowing how they work and then doing what you can about it. You shouldn't put your life around it, but if you realilzed that with little effort you can systematically improve your overall attractiveness why wouldn't you do it?


This assumes that one is unattractive to begin with, which isn't always the case. I have an issue with the sex rank talk because it takes things that _aren't_ unattractive qualities and makes men think they are. Like being shy or quiet...time and time again that's seen as an undesirable quality and a sign of a lack of confidence. My husband is the most confident person I have ever known, he's extremely successful in his career, and he's quiet. Doesn't talk much. It's something that drew me to him before we dated. He was like my own, personal Mr. Darcy. Another example is going to the gym. One doesn't have to be macho and largely built to be attractive, and yet that seems to be the general thought. Out of all of the guys I've dated, my husband is the best built of all of them. The ex I was most in love with was really, really lean with mild face disfigurements. 

Again, I am fine with someone bettering themselves. Going to the gym, getting an education to have a more successful career, gaining more confidence in social situations, learning a new language, trying new activities...all are great things to do. But sex rank encourages them to do them for the wrong reasons, imo. Not every woman is attracted to the same kind of man, and yet, men trying to up their sex rank are usually trying to become the exact same kind of guy. 



> The whole thing about sex rank is people do it without realizing what they are actually doing! But others do have rank systems similar to what was described in the Athol Kay MMSL.


Doing things just to increase your chances of getting more sex is counterproductive, imo. _Why_ someone does something can make that thing unattractive.


----------



## treyvion

Faithful Wife said:


> No Lon, that is not what the douche team says. They say ALL WOMEN are hypergamous. They do not say "just the gold diggers".


There are different types of women, so an "all women" comment or "all men" comment is quite ignorant.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Yes it is quite ignorant, treyvion. The sources who are saying that are complete ignoramous douche bags. I'm repeating what THEY say, not because I believe it or because it is true.


----------



## Lon

Created2Write said:


> I'm assuming that you mean it's sometimes natural to assign a sexual rank to someone? If you mean the likelihood that you'd have sex with someone based on your initial thoughts the first moment you see them, then yeah...I guess it's hard to avoid doing that if you're consciously thinking about who you would or wouldn't sleep with every time you step outside. I believe people interact with each other for more reasons than finding potential sexual partners, and I believe that someone could have a high sexual rank and have absolutely no chance of seducing the person they're pursuing.


For everybody, we are all filtering information all the time - we know what we like and don't like, and a lot of that certainly comes from social influences apart from just own own preferences. I don't think it is natural for everyone to consciously apply a number to everything. But there are some of us, much more common in men I suspect, especially more introverted and analytical ones, to be consciously building a model of our world all around us, and for those it probably is much easier to stop and think "oh, hey, she's an 8" or "oh hey, that 2007 Porsche Carrerra GT is much more refined in the geometry of the rear decklid and the front splitters than the 2004 Carrerra GT" or "the distribution of major wins by Tiger Woods seems to follow a normal distribution, and he is clearly on the downslope not likely to win another major in his PGA career" etc.

But I absolutely agree, that individuality can trump the statistical argument at any given moment.

And, just because I can easily pull up and tag a numerical attribute to any specific item that my mind processes with high confidence, doesn't make someone into an object, or mean I only think of them as an object. It is just the model of the world around me and I like it to be accurate... but modelling the world is not my sole purpose it is just a tool.


----------



## Lon

Faithful Wife said:


> No Lon, that is not what the douche team says. They say ALL WOMEN are hypergamous. They do not say "just the gold diggers".


I truly don't care about the douche crew or the hypergaming [email protected] I'm trying to have a meaningful conversation about and with people that actually see past that BS. I'm focussing on the bigger picture here.


----------



## MSP

> My wife is an eleven.
Click to expand...

In volume? Bummer.


----------



## Entropy3000




----------



## Entropy3000

MSP said:


> In volume? Bummer.


Some women are screamers. I know I am.


----------



## Ikaika

MSP said:


> In volume? Bummer.



Haha, if you knew my wife that of course would be opposite of her.

Unless of course if we are talking about... Oh never mind


----------



## Created2Write

Entropy3000 said:


> On the one hand I get the sex rank in the Athol Kay sense. BUT, for me there are a whole set of attributes that bring the wood. I am not impressed by super model types at all. You have sex with the woman. She needs to be mentally home.


Right. 

There are also a host of other reasons, completely unrelated to sex rank, for someone to not even be on someone else's sexual radar. For me that comes down to individuality. One woman might totally screw one guy, it doesn't mean I would. 

I remember when I came back from boot camp, the guide from my Delayed Entry Program, asked me out. He was, at the time, the single most beautiful man I had ever met. Extremely confident. Bordering on intimidating, even. Perfect body. Tall. Black hair. Dark eyes. Perfect complexion. Deep voice. Great @ss. Just by looking at him, I knew he'd be an amazing lay and I was still a virgin. He was nice, too. Didn't smile a lot, but he was friendly, even if a bit distant. I still remember how shocked I was that he would be into me. The guy could have any girl he wanted. Talk about boosting my ego. There was absolutely nothing unattractive about him. And yet, he had no chance of getting me to sleep with him. My personality and his would not have meshed. And I wasn't open to ONSs. 

A man could be a perfect 10+ in sex rank, and still be rejected by the women they pursue, because sex rank plays no actual role in who has sex with whom.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Lon said:


> wait... us guys rank each other?
> 
> I thought we basically put it all on the women to define our ranking of sexual desirability, and that the numbers basically play out by themselves?


Just an aside, but since you mention this, there is actually a theory of mate selection in mammals that basically says the males do set their own order and the females mate with males according to that order subject to availability. 

Various species of goat studied do the typical bash-each-other-over-mating-rights thing, and female selection there correlates most strongly to the winner of these matches regardless of other traits. As the theory goes, the physical traits are really secondary signals, predictors of dominance, rather than stand alone preferences. The females still mate mostly according to the hierarchy the males established, even when the "winner" doesn't fit the physical traits most commonly "preferred". The competition among the males set the hierarchy and rank in the hierarchy was the overwhelmingly dominant factor in female preference. There are various signals in other mammals, of males deferring to other males, which are similarly thought to set the mating hierarchy as well. The important thing is that the males in the species studied don't go "take the female they want", so mating "rights" isn't quite accurate, so much as the females subsequently jocky amongst each other for the male's attention according to his rank in the hierarchy.

Even though the article I read in Nature extended this to observations of several other mammals and not human beings, it doesn't take any imagination to see some similarities. In any group of men, without any influence of women, men self-organize into a readily apparent hierarchy of leaders, lieutenants, followers and niche roles. You can decide for yourself how well attraction in women correlates to the degree of male dominance (or its higher order cousin, "status") in those hierarchies, and whether women then jocky amongst each other for the attention of the males that the males themselves placed at the top of the order.

Surely feminists will object as they do to any idea of their choices being framed by males (individuals with individual preferences!!!), but yeah, it is actually real research in other mammals. I'm not going to debate it. Just putting it out there. I suppose the credibility you give it depends on just how far from other mammals you think human beings really are. I'm inclined to think, purely on intuition, that this process still exists in people to some extent at a lower level, and a higher order consciousness lays on top of it, much more heavily influenced by culture, socialization and upbringing etc - and the two don't necessarily agree.

Ideas like this fascinate me, right up there with the idea that nobody actually has free will, only the illusion of it as a result of an incredibly complex deterministic system.

::: dons flameproof suit for the inevitable *science!* outrage :::

Just to play on ideas a little, if true of humans, the theory might mean that males don't actually do the picking, but the ranking... and they aren't actually ranking females, but themselves. The females then pick in accordance with how the males ranked each other - and the social norm of males approaching females, is purely cultural (maybe a by product of women having been thought of as property of a male... initially, the father). Rather, the males could just stand around engaging each other, and the females gravitate to them in accordance with the hierarchy they perceive the males to have established.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Lon said:


> I truly don't care about the douche crew or the hypergaming [email protected] I'm trying to have a meaningful conversation about and with people that actually see past that BS. I'm focussing on the bigger picture here.


But I did want to correct what you said. You implied that the douche team can determine the difference between a "gold digger" and "any woman". They cannot.

This is an important point to me, for myself.

I realize it is not important to you.

But I like delineating what the douche team says because I want to hi-lite what DOUCHES they are!


----------



## Created2Write

Lon said:


> For everybody, we are all filtering information all the time - we know what we like and don't like, and a lot of that certainly comes from social influences apart from just own own preferences. I don't think it is natural for everyone to consciously apply a number to everything. But there are some of us, much more common in men I suspect, especially more introverted and analytical ones, to be consciously building a model of our world all around us, and for those it probably is much easier to stop and think "oh, hey, she's an 8" or "oh hey, that 2007 Porsche Carrerra GT is much more refined in the geometry of the rear decklid and the front splitters than the 2004 Carrerra GT" or "the distribution of major wins by Tiger Woods seems to follow a normal distribution, and he is clearly on the downslope not likely to win another major in his PGA career" etc.


I'm not a guy so I wouldn't know, but based on what I've read by some on this forum, I doubt that it's as...nonchalant as you say. For them, at least. 



> But I absolutely agree, that individuality can trump the statistical argument at any given moment.
> 
> And, just because I can easily pull up and tag a numerical attribute to any specific item that my mind processes with high confidence, doesn't make someone into an object, or mean I only think of them as an object. It is just the model of the world around me and I like it to be accurate... but modelling the world is not my sole purpose it is just a tool.


Having an attraction for someone, even a purely sexual or physical one, doesn't make them an object on its own. Having preferences doesn't make someone an object, either. That I agree with.


----------



## treyvion

Created2Write said:


> I get that. And I am all for personal development and bettering one's self, but for the right reasons. Anyone who changes themselves merely to be more attractive to the opposite sex and up their chances of having sex is setting themselves up for failure, imo. Example: I've tried working out so I could be hot for my husband. He's in much better condition than I am, and I wanted to look like I belonged with him. Now, I've never been overweight or obese. There was nothing wrong with how I looked. So, I tried for two years to go to the gym and work out, but my heart wasn't in it at all. It wasn't until I started going to the gym _for myself_, and to improve actual physical ability rather than just look a certain way, that I got somewhere.
> 
> If a guy wants to be more confident, or more outgoing, more power to him. But it should be for _him_, not anyone else or anything else.
> 
> 
> 
> This assumes that one is unattractive to begin with, which isn't always the case. I have an issue with the sex rank talk because it takes things that _aren't_ unattractive qualities and makes men think they are. Like being shy or quiet...time and time again that's seen as an undesirable quality and a sign of a lack of confidence. My husband is the most confident person I have ever known, he's extremely successful in his career, and he's quiet. Doesn't talk much. It's something that drew me to him before we dated. He was like my own, personal Mr. Darcy. Another example is going to the gym. One doesn't have to be macho and largely built to be attractive, and yet that seems to be the general thought. Out of all of the guys I've dated, my husband is the best built of all of them. The ex I was most in love with was really, really lean with mild face disfigurements.
> 
> Again, I am fine with someone bettering themselves. Going to the gym, getting an education to have a more successful career, gaining more confidence in social situations, learning a new language, trying new activities...all are great things to do. But sex rank encourages them to do them for the wrong reasons, imo. Not every woman is attracted to the same kind of man, and yet, men trying to up their sex rank are usually trying to become the exact same kind of guy.
> 
> 
> 
> Doing things just to increase your chances of getting more sex is counterproductive, imo. _Why_ someone does something can make that thing unattractive.


Sex-rank explains to someone who may have "stumbled" or never figured it out, that there are things you can do to help yourself. And you should be doing it for yourself anyway. It motivates people to improve themself. You should do it for yourself. But also noticing as you help your self, you will have a more favorable situation with others. Still you may gain a "great" sex rank, and have other females or males block you out or attempt to reduce your esteem as a result.


----------



## Lon

Faithful Wife said:


> But I did want to correct what you said. You implied that the douche team can determine the difference between a "gold digger" and "any woman". They cannot.
> 
> This is an important point to me, for myself.
> 
> I realize it is not important to you.
> 
> But I like delineating what the douche team says because I want to hi-lite what DOUCHES they are!


I meant to make no implication whatsoever. The only thing the doucheteam is capable of doing well, is establishing a baseline sex rank scale for women based purely on physical looksalone, and they are completely incapable of defining the subtle nuances about looks that the rest of normal, relatively healthy men would find interesting. And the doucheteam certainly has no capacity at all to determine what other value a woman has in terms of meeting a man's non-visual sexual gratification needs. I even explicitly stated that they are inept at realizing these women would hold a more important place in their lives, a comment of mine that you even liked!?

Anyways, can we stop talking about team douchecanoe?


----------



## Faithful Wife

treyvion said:


> Sex-rank explains to someone who may have "stumbled" or never figured it out, that there are things you can do to help yourself. And you should be doing it for yourself anyway. It motivates people to improve themself. You should do it for yourself. But also noticing as you help your self, you will have a more favorable situation with others. Still you may gain a "great" sex rank, and have other females or males block you out or attempt to reduce your esteem as a result.


Or you can increase your sex rank, but still suck at sex...so you won't be fooling anyone when you get behind closed doors. EPIC FAIL!!!!


----------



## Jung_admirer

Faithful Wife said:


> Is that a real question, Jung? My husband and I would both rank 9's on your list. You think that's rare? I know many fine people who are very high on the list you created.


Hmmm, a female 9 would have the looks of Angelina Jolie, intellect of Madeleine Albright, spirituality and emotional strength of Pema Chodron and social nature of Barbara Walters... combined.

I think I have never met a 9 before ... nice to meet you FW.


----------



## Faithful Wife

I'm way better looking than Angelina. 

Since YOUR list is subjective to who YOU think is attractive, moral, intelligent, etc...then you may not rank me anywhere near that. But in my ranking and the way I consider those qualities, yep, me and H are both 9's.


----------



## Created2Write

treyvion said:


> Sex-rank explains to someone who may have "stumbled" or never figured it out, that there are things you can do to help yourself. And you should be doing it for yourself anyway. It motivates people to improve themself. You should do it for yourself. But also noticing as you help your self, you will have a more favorable situation with others. Still you may gain a "great" sex rank, and have other females or males block you out or attempt to reduce your esteem as a result.


I guess from my perspective, someone shouldn't need "sex rank" to do these things for themselves, and many of the things that are seen as negative qualities that lower sex rank, are actually endearing to others. The idea/system is very flawed and broken, to put it plainly.


----------



## treyvion

Lon said:


> I meant to make no implication whatsoever. The only thing the doucheteam is capable of doing well, is establishing a baseline sex rank scale for women based purely on physical looksalone, and they are completely incapable of defining the subtle nuances about looks that the rest of normal, relatively healthy men would find interesting. And the doucheteam certainly has no capacity at all to determine what other value a woman has in terms of meeting a man's non-visual sexual gratification needs. I even explicitly stated that they are inept at realizing these women would hold a more important place in their lives, a comment of mine that you even liked!?
> 
> Anyways, can we stop talking about team douchecanoe?


Some of it is ranking like "points" on a buck for a dear hunter. It might have no sexual connotation, but looks, body and fashion are top ranks in that particular system.


----------



## Created2Write

Faithful Wife said:


> Or you can increase your sex rank, but still suck at sex...so you won't be fooling anyone when you get behind closed doors. EPIC FAIL!!!!


Exactly.


----------



## Created2Write

- A man can be physically beautiful and still be horrible to be around. 
- A man can dress well, and still be horrible to talk to. 
- A man can be funny and have good social skills, and still be a massive annoyance. 
- A man can be intelligent and successful in his career, and have no confidence whatsoever. 
- A man can be confident, and come across as a major jerk. 
- A man can have all of these things, and still be a horrible lover. 

Another reason I don't like the sex rank idea is that, to me, it seems more about learning to _fake_ qualities men think women want, rather than actually changing one's self. Some of the men who buy into the sex rank idea on this forum talk about confidence, but getting into the gritty details, it becomes clear that any confidence they have is faked. They're still insecure, they still need female attention to feel good about themselves, and they don't see women as anything but a means to an end, no matter how much they argue otherwise. 

Now, not all of the men who agree with the sex rank ideas actually act this way. But many do.


----------



## Entropy3000

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Just an aside, but since you mention this, there is actually a theory of mate selection in mammals that basically says the males do set their own order and the females mate with males according to that order subject to availability.
> 
> Various species of goat studied do the typical bash-each-other-over-mating-rights thing, and female selection there correlates most strongly to the winner of these matches regardless of other traits. As the theory goes, the physical traits are really secondary signals, predictors of dominance, rather than stand alone preferences. The females still mate mostly according to the hierarchy the males established, even when the "winner" doesn't fit the most common physical trait preferences / prediction. The competition among the males set the hierarchy. There are various signals in other mammals, of males deferring to other males, which are similarly thought to set the mating hierarchy as well. The important thing is that the males in the species studied don't go "take the female they want", so mating "rights" isn't quite accurate, so much as the females subsequently jocky amongst each other for the male's attention.
> 
> Even though the article I read in Nature extended this to observations of several other mammals and not human beings, it doesn't take any imagination to see some similarities. In any group of men, without any influence of women, men self-organize into a readily apparent hierarchy of leaders, lieutenants, followers and niche roles. You can decide for yourself how well attraction in women correlates to the degree of male dominance (or its higher order cousin, "status") in those hierarchies, and whether women then jocky amongst each other for the attention of the males that the males themselves placed at the top of the order.
> 
> Surely feminists will object as they do to any idea of their choices being framed by males (individuals with individual preferences!!!), but yeah, it is actually real research in other mammals. I'm not going to debate it. Just putting it out there. I suppose the credibility you give it depends on just how far from other mammals human beings really are. I'm inclined to think, purely on intuition, that this process still exists in people to some extent at a lower level, and a higher order consciousness lays on top of it, much more heavily influenced by culture, socialization and upbringing etc - and the two don't necessarily agree.
> 
> Ideas like this fascinate me, right up there with the idea that nobody actually has free will, only the illusion of it as a result of an incredibly complex deterministic system.
> 
> ::: dons flameproof suit for the inevitable *science!* outrage :::


A practical example of this with humans is for a more dominant male to run another off. This of course can get very lame very quickly and the female can walk away from both. But it is essentially the same idea.


----------



## Entropy3000

Faithful Wife said:


> Or you can increase your sex rank, but still suck at sex...so you won't be fooling anyone when you get behind closed doors. EPIC FAIL!!!!


Not a fail for some guys. They do not care if they suck at sex. EPIC FAIL likely for the woman. Maybe next time.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Created2Write said:


> The whole notion of sex rank based on looks and money is ridiculous to me. People have sex for a myriad of different reasons and with a myriad of different kinds of people. "Ranking" people in an attempt to identify why someone is or isn't having sex only serves to put people in an ill conceived box to make the one doing the ranking feel more comfortable. It implies that if someone isn't having sex, there must be something wrong with them, an idea that leaves no room open for individual choices and standards.
> 
> There are many people I've known in my life who I wouldn't have given the time of day, but there isn't a number or rank I assigned to them. It was simply that I knew we would be horrible together. In fact, some of them were very nice individuals and there wasn't anything _un_attractive about them. *So, as far as ranks go, they would have been higher in number. And yet, they had zero chance of actually being with me, because I don't buy into the sex rank notion*.


on the heels of this... I feel very similar, when I was younger, I used to laugh at some of my GF's -the guys they salivated over.....I would just shake my head.... sure they were cute but they were also very immature ....for me, those guys were worth virtually nothing..but a momentary thrill, a few laughs... I just didn't have a good opinion of them at all....others would have deemed them a high ranking (because they were popular)...the ones who were smart, good looking and treated others (even the outcasts) like human beings , however, those had a high ranking with me....

I think depending on what a person is looking for in life, our ranking systems will be a different...nothing wrong with that.. and thankfully we're not all the same! Or only the upper echelon would be deemed worthy and the rest could go die..

What a sorrowful life it would be. 

Whether it be Male of Female.. in my own life.. I DO weigh the pros and cons if I'd want to get to know someone better...on a deeper level......asking questions as I size them up.....

No reason I would care about the Looks of another woman.. I have , however, pre-judged others are likely "stuck up" if she is too beautiful... (just because of how high school was)

It's funny, we got these new neighbors -their oldest son will be playing with our youngest, same age (1st grade)... when I showed my H their photos on FB, and he seen him driving a 4x4 Cadillac ...the 1st thing he says is... "They are too GOOD for us".. I just laughed .. but I kinda felt the same... they look like movie stars, they are young ...and RICH... 

They invited us to their sons party and showered us with attention & kindness.. I was a bit blown away... wonderful people!! When we left their house, we had a sense of friendship...and acceptance... that they are good people.. that's what matters ...and really ALL THAT MATTERS to me...(oh they are 20 yrs younger than us.. and a little envy rose in me - Oh to be young again like that!!)...but ya know.... we had our day in the sun....even if we were poorer and not as good looking... 



> *Created2Write said*:
> - A man can be physically beautiful and still be horrible to be around.
> - A man can dress well, and still be horrible to talk to.
> - A man can be funny and have good social skills, and still be a massive annoyance.
> - A man can be intelligent and successful in his career, and have no confidence whatsoever.
> - A man can be confident, and come across as a major jerk.
> - A man can have all of these things, and still be a horrible lover.


 Couldn't agree more ! ...we could do a list like that for women too!


----------



## treyvion

Entropy3000 said:


> Not a fail for some guys. They do not care if they suck at sex. EPIC FAIL likely for the woman. Maybe next time.


Some of the guys had enough stature and rank, they never had to be good at sex. As long as they get theirs it's OK.


----------



## Created2Write

SimplyAmorous said:


> on the heels of this... I feel very similar, when I was younger, I used to laugh at some of my GF's -the guys they salivated over.....I would just shake my head.... sure they were cute but they were also very immature ....for me, those guys were worth virtually nothing..but a momentary thrill, a few laughs... I just didn't have a good opinion of them at all....others would have deemed them a high ranking (because they were popular)...the ones who were smart, good looking and treated others (even the outcasts) like human beings , however, those had a high ranking with me....
> 
> I think depending on what a person is looking for in life, our ranking systems will be a different...nothing wrong with that.. and thankfully we're not all the same! Or only the upper echelon would be deemed worthy and the rest could go die..
> 
> What a sorrowful life it would be.
> 
> Whether it be Male of Female.. in my own life.. I DO weigh the pros and cons if I'd want to get to know someone better...on a deeper level......asking questions as I size them up.....
> 
> No reason I would care about the Looks of another woman.. I have , however, pre-judged others are likely stuck up if she is too beautiful...
> 
> It's funny, we got these new neighbors -their oldest son will be playing with our youngest, same age (1st grade)... when I showed my H their photos on FB, and he seen him driving a 4x4 Cadillac ...the 1st thing he says is... "They are too GOOD for us".. I just laughed .. but I kinda felt the same... they look like movie stars, they are young ...and RICH...
> 
> They invited us to their sons party and showered us with attention & kindness.. I was a bit blown away... wonderful people!! When we left their house, we had a sense of friendship...and acceptance... that they are good people.. that's what matters ...and really ALL THAT MATTERS to me...(oh they are 20 yrs younger than us.. and a little envy rose in me - Oh to be young again like that!!)...but ya know.... we had our day in the sun....even if we were poorer and not as good looking...
> 
> Couldn't agree more ! ...we could do a list like that for women too!


Great post.


----------



## Lon

treyvion said:


> Some of it is ranking like "points" on a buck for a dear hunter. It might have no sexual connotation, but looks, body and fashion are top ranks in that particular system.


I understand well how SR works. But I think discussing it is going nowhere on here, trying to define it in a useful way only brings about superficial objectification of the entire SR system (akin to how those same women feel that SR system is itself is entirely superficially objective of women) by the women on here that have been asked to identify by what measures or means they classify other women.

So if it's not really by looks alone, then please elaborate ladies, how do you jockey about for position to decide what level/calibre/type of guy you feel that you tend to go for? Or is it for some other reason that you jockey amongst yourselves for position/prestige? Or do you think that prestige/rank doesn't really exist at all on the female side of the equation?

(I think the answer was already provided pages back with the S.I.T.C trope).


----------



## barbados

The title of this thread reminded me of this. Please take it for the joke its intended to be : (Hope I don't get banned for this ?)

George Carlin - Pissing off the Feminists - YouTube


----------



## treyvion

SimplyAmorous said:


> on the heels of this... I feel very similar, when I was younger, I used to laugh at some of my GF's -the guys they salivated over.....I would just shake my head.... sure they were cute but they were also very immature ....for me, those guys were worth virtually nothing..but a momentary thrill, a few laughs... I just didn't have a good opinion of them at all....others would have deemed them a high ranking (because they were popular)..


You get it. The ranking "system" depends on the group doing the ranking. The ranking does not guarantee the best partner, the best sex or the best anything. 



SimplyAmorous said:


> .the ones who were smart, good looking and treated others (even the outcasts) like human beings , however, those had a high ranking with me....


When you get older these feel good qualities as long as whether someone is dependable, has integrity, looks out for your interests, how they think might have ranking with you.



SimplyAmorous said:


> I think depending on what a person is looking for in life, our ranking systems will be a different...nothing wrong with that.. and thankfully we're not all the same! Or only the upper echelon would be deemed worthy and the rest could go die..


Some people never grow out of the HS phase. Their ranking system is locked in to what it was.



SimplyAmorous said:


> What a sorrowful life it would be.
> 
> Whether it be Male of Female.. in my own life.. I DO weigh the pros and cons if I'd want to get to know someone better...on a deeper level......asking questions as I size them up.....
> 
> No reason I would care about the Looks of another woman.. I have , however, pre-judged others are likely "stuck up" if she is too beautiful... (just because of how high school was)


Sometimes the cost of "beauty" can be too high to the other relationship partner. However "beauty" does not guarantee someone will not be a good relation partner, they may be beautiful insides too, but this society coddles "beauty" and lets it get away with a lot, so a large amount are corrupted.



SimplyAmorous said:


> It's funny, we got these new neighbors -their oldest son will be playing with our youngest, same age (1st grade)... when I showed my H their photos on FB, and he seen him driving a 4x4 Cadillac ...the 1st thing he says is... "They are too GOOD for us".. I just laughed .. but I kinda felt the same... they look like movie stars, they are young ...and RICH...


Haha.



SimplyAmorous said:


> They invited us to their sons party and showered us with attention & kindness.. I was a bit blown away... wonderful people!! When we left their house, we had a sense of friendship...and acceptance... that they are good people.. that's what matters ...and really ALL THAT MATTERS to me...(oh they are 20 yrs younger than us.. and a little envy rose in me - Oh to be young again like that!!)...but ya know.... we had our day in the sun....even if we were poorer and not as good looking...
> 
> Couldn't agree more ! ...we could do a list like that for women too!


It's great that they had all that "stuff" but were really friendly and nice people. That's very attractive.


----------



## Created2Write

treyvion said:


> Some of the guys had enough stature and rank, they never had to be good at sex. As long as they get theirs it's OK.


Another failing in sex rank. It focuses more on how to get one time sex, not on how to keep these women coming back for more. There are no qualities a man can have that will keep a woman coming back for more if he is bad in bed. So it shouldn't even be called "sex rank". It should be called "how to get a one-night stand".


----------



## Entropy3000

Created2Write said:


> - A man can be physically beautiful and still be horrible to be around.
> 
> *Yes but he gets first shot. You have to get to know him befire you can determine this. Even if it only takes five minutes he gets up to bat.*
> 
> - A man can dress well, and still be horrible to talk to.
> 
> *But it is about the sale. ABC. Always be closing. You may notice him because of how he dresses. He gets a shot.*
> 
> - A man can be funny and have good social skills, and still be a massive annoyance.
> 
> *This is a little harder to understand but ok. He just may not click with you. But these things give him an edge.*
> 
> - A man can be intelligent and successful in his career, and have no confidence whatsoever.
> 
> *He may be broken then. Likely temporary. Look for the woman that broke him. It is hard to be successful and not be confident in what he does. But I get it, It does not carry over.
> *
> 
> - A man can be confident, and come across as a major jerk.
> 
> *I say he is arrogant then. But indeed he can be confidnet and a jerk. But confidence in general is sexy.*
> 
> - A man can have all of these things, and still be a horrible lover.
> 
> *Of course. But if you give he a test drive he has gotten his foot ... in the door.*


These are all else equal things. The edge one man may have over another.

Remember you are looking for the better jeans ... I mean genes. The guy is only looking for a shot. A chance. One in twenty works just fine for him.


----------



## Lon

SimplyAmorous said:


> ...It's funny, we got these new neighbors -their oldest son will be playing with our youngest, same age (1st grade)... when I showed my H their photos on FB, and he seen him driving a 4x4 Cadillac ...the 1st thing he says is... "They are too GOOD for us".. I just laughed .. but I kinda felt the same... they look like movie stars, they are young ...and RICH...
> 
> They invited us to their sons party and showered us with attention & kindness.. I was a bit blown away... wonderful people!! When we left their house, we had a sense of friendship...and acceptance... that they are good people.. that's what matters ...and really ALL THAT MATTERS to me...(oh they are 20 yrs younger than us.. *and a little envy rose in me - Oh to be young again like that!!)*...but ya know.... we had our day in the sun....even if we were poorer and not as good looking...


From what I know of you and your H SA, I suspect that to them, they were in awe of your vitality and vigour and value their time with you because they admire and want to role model their family on the same merits as you guys have demonstrated.


----------



## Entropy3000

Created2Write said:


> Another failing in sex rank. It focuses more on how to get one time sex, not on how to keep these women coming back for more. There are no qualities a man can have that will keep a woman coming back for more if he is bad in bed. So it shouldn't even be called "sex rank". It should be called "how to get a one-night stand".


A guy can be good in bed and otherwise be a total loser. If this is the gioal then maybe he gets to pass his genes on and a more suitable mate can handle the rest.

Being good in bed is no good if you never get the chance. Practice helps.


----------



## Entropy3000

survivorwife said:


> Stepford Wife
> Soccer Mom


MILF
Party Girl
Cougar
Size Queen
Ball Buster
Mistress
Beyotch
Skank
Hottie
Cutie
OMFG
Princess
Goddess
Entitled
...


----------



## treyvion

Entropy3000 said:


> MILF
> Party Girl
> Cougar
> Size Queen
> Ball Buster
> Mistress
> Beyotch
> Skank
> Hottie
> Cutie
> OMFG
> Princess
> Goddess
> Entitled
> ...


What if that's the only choice of qualities that you had to choose from in your pool.


----------



## Created2Write

> Yes but he gets first shot. You have to get to know him befire you can determine this. Even if it only takes five minutes he gets up to bat.


What good is that if he doesn't get the chance to swing?



> But it is about the sale. ABC. Always be closing. You may notice him because of how he dresses. He gets a shot.


I notice guys who dress well. DH is a very simple dresser, and has different tastes in clothes than I do. Yet, I didn't marry or have sex with the man whose attire appealed most to me. 



> This is a little harder to understand but ok. He just may not click with you. But these things give him an edge.


I'll explain. I've known men who were funny and made me laugh, men who were popular and well liked by others, but who were absolute idiots. One guy bragged to me about his big truck, and how it was so far out of his price range he can't afford to insure it. And he bragged about how there were women stalking him all of the time and leaving love messages on his facebook page. He was funny, made me laugh more than once. But the more I got to know his personality, the less I liked him. I was not impressed with the irresponsibility of buying a vehicle he couldn't afford, or with his massive ego. So, no. His humor didn't give him an edge in the long run. 



> He may be broken then. Likely temporary. Look for the woman that broke him. It is hard to be successful and not be confident in what he does. But I get it, It does not carry over.


Even if he is confident and successful in his career, it is no guarantee that he's a man worth giving one's time and attention to. 



> I say he is arrogant then. But indeed he can be confidnet and a jerk. But confidence in general is sexy.


Real confidence, yes. That is sexy. Part of what drew me to DH.



> Of course. But if you give he a test drive he has gotten his foot ... in the door.


Which is why I never gave anyone but DH a "test drive". He'd already passed his test, he was now being given a chance at the wheel. 



Entropy3000 said:


> These are all else equal things. The edge one man may have over another.
> 
> Remember you are looking for the better jeans ... I mean genes. The guy is only looking for a shot. A chance. One in twenty works just fine for him.


The issue for me is that none of these things individually give him a shot. Even all of them together don't give him "a shot". With me, anyway.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Lon said:


> I meant to make no implication whatsoever. The only thing the doucheteam is capable of doing well, is establishing a baseline sex rank scale for women based purely on physical looksalone, and they are completely incapable of defining the subtle nuances about looks that the rest of normal, relatively healthy men would find interesting. And the doucheteam certainly has no capacity at all to determine what other value a woman has in terms of meeting a man's non-visual sexual gratification needs. I even explicitly stated that they are inept at realizing these women would hold a more important place in their lives, a comment of mine that you even liked!?
> 
> Anyways, can we stop talking about team douchecanoe?


Lon, I fully understand you are not on the douche canoe team.

But will I stop talking about them? NO. 

Any discussion where these idiotic things are discussed (not saying YOU are discussing it) then I'm right there with my DOUCHE CANOE sign and comments.


----------



## Created2Write

Entropy3000 said:


> Being good in bed is no good if you never get the chance. Practice helps.


Being "good" in bed requires one to be loving and generous, whether it's a ONS or a LTR. Many who buy into the sex rank idea care more about themselves than the person they're with.


----------



## treyvion

Created2Write said:


> Being "good" in bed requires one to be loving and generous, whether it's a ONS or a LTR. Many who buy into the sex rank idea care more about themselves than the person they're with.


Some of us "sex rankers" are self-improvement minded. So we like to control things that can make outcomes more favorable for us.

I'm not saying I run anyone rigidly through a system at this time, but use it to better myself.

Theres a few things that would knock someone out of my perception and it depends on if i'm just trying to get laid or have a long term partner.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Created2Write said:


> Being "good" in bed requires one to be loving and generous, whether it's a ONS or a LTR. Many who buy into the sex rank idea care more about themselves than the person they're with.


I don't think they really care about themselves, either. They are just bumbling around going "Gee, why am I not a p*ssy assassin like some of these other guys I see? Wait! Some of them wrote blogs so I can find out how? Show me where!" and then they drink the snake oil and believe they've learned some SCIENCE!!!!! but in reality, all they've done is read a douche blog.


----------



## Entropy3000

Created2Write said:


> What good is that if he doesn't get the chance to swing?
> 
> 
> 
> I notice guys who dress well. DH is a very simple dresser, and has different tastes in clothes than I do. Yet, I didn't marry or have sex with the man whose attire appealed most to me.
> 
> 
> 
> I'll explain. I've known men who were funny and made me laugh, men who were popular and well liked by others, but who were absolute idiots. One guy bragged to me about his big truck, and how it was so far out of his price range he can't afford to insure it. And he bragged about how there were women stalking him all of the time and leaving love messages on his facebook page. He was funny, made me laugh more than once. But the more I got to know his personality, the less I liked him. I was not impressed with the irresponsibility of buying a vehicle he couldn't afford, or with his massive ego. So, no. His humor didn't give him an edge in the long run.
> 
> 
> 
> Even if he is confident and successful in his career, it is no guarantee that he's a man worth giving one's time and attention to.
> 
> 
> 
> Real confidence, yes. That is sexy. Part of what drew me to DH.
> 
> 
> 
> Which is why I never gave anyone but DH a "test drive". He'd already passed his test, he was now being given a chance at the wheel.
> 
> 
> 
> The issue for me is that none of these things individually give him a shot. Even all of them together don't give him "a shot". With me, anyway.


They are generally attractive traits. The can get you past hello.

Pool Guy

So I hear you say it is all about being good in bed. I guess there are other things you look for. I will not even guess. Height is a common one.

Now if you say it is the package well indeed we get this. Well it depends if you mean aggregate or a big package but I digress. But I could say the same thing about a owman.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> I'm way better looking than Angelina.
> 
> Since YOUR list is subjective to who YOU think is attractive, moral, intelligent, etc...then you may not rank me anywhere near that. But in my ranking and the way I consider those qualities, yep, me and H are both 9's.


I like the version before you edited in the second paragraph. You had points for being c*cky. 

Interestingly, the edit, while pointing out subjectivity, can also be seen as acknowledgement that the system isn't entirely subjective, but based on popular preference. You're aware most aren't going to think you're hotter than Angelina anymore than I think most will believe I'm hotter than David Beckham. Individual preferences are subjective, however, the popularity of a preference is an objective fact. Without those preferences being popular, the rank only explains the degree to which HE liked her - and that's not all that is being communicated. Yet, when I say someone is a 10 - everyone in the developed world instantly knows I'm talking about stunning looks, personality (conforming to popular preferences in each), intelligence, fame, fortune etc. Based on certain things we share - there's an elemental of social acceptance and camaraderie to it. I like Ninja Turtles, you like Ninja Turtles... we're gonna get along great. Follow me?

TBH, this all gets way too much air time. I can't even remember the last time I referred to a woman by how highly I rated her. In fact, most of the time when I've heard someone say such, its done as a drinking story. "So in walk this blonde girl and she's like a 9... hot as all get out... and..." -guys of a group, or even a given society, are going to have a rough feel for what she looks like. TBH, women do too don't you think? When I say 10, do you think more along the lines of Roseanne Barr, or Adriana Lima?

The weird nature of PUA forums and their conversational pattern that uses HB# all the time is aberrant, peculiar to telling PUA stories and sharing pickup experience - the equivalent of valley girls saying "like", like all the time. Subculture. Read enough of them and you too will prefer HB8 to "really good looking woman, great shapely legs, glowing personality, cool style... " {superlative adjective noun, superlative adjective noun, superlative adjective noun}. TL;DR; --> HB8. Decent idea of appearance and rarity established by a number... because of the popularity of certain preferences, not total subjectivity.


----------



## Lon

*Re: Re: Female ranking system*



Faithful Wife said:


> Lon, I fully understand you are not on the douche canoe team.
> 
> But will I stop talking about them? NO.
> 
> Any discussion where these idiotic things are discussed (not saying YOU are discussing it) then I'm right there with my DOUCHE CANOE sign and comments.


OK but I was just hoping to not have to put a big lengthy disclaimer on every comment I make that would talk about SR from a nondouche perspective


----------



## Faithful Wife

Lon, I don't really understand or know about any SR system that is not from the douche camp.

Do you just mean talking about our individual subjective attractions? Then sure, I'm all for talking about that without disclaimers. But SR is and always will be douche categorized by me. My doing that really has nothing to do with you personally.

I know you're not "one of them".


----------



## MRABoysHaveSmallPeanut

Fozzy said:


> I just read a link in a post Machiavelli put up that went into a quite extensively detailed list of the male socio-sexual hierarchy. I honestly had no idea there were so many categories beyond "alpha" and "loser".


Do you believe everything you read on the Internet?


----------



## Faithful Wife

MRA - Fozzy doesn't "believe" the crap he was referring to, he just opened this post out of curiosity if there was a similar ranking for women, or that is my assumption.


----------



## Entropy3000

treyvion said:


> What if that's the only choice of qualities that you had to choose from in your pool.


I might shoot myself.

But I might console myself with the Hottie for a while.


----------



## treyvion

Faithful Wife said:


> I don't think they really care about themselves, either. They are just bumbling around going "Gee, why am I not a p*ssy assassin like some of these other guys I see? Wait! Some of them wrote blogs so I can find out how? Show me where!" and then they drink the snake oil and believe they've learned some SCIENCE!!!!! but in reality, all they've done is read a douche blog.


P*ssy assassin! What a way to rouse excitement in us men. Love it!


----------



## Faithful Wife

You're welcome.


----------



## treyvion

Entropy3000 said:


> I might shoot myself.
> 
> But I might console myself with the Hottie for a while.


The sexless hottie option who will use all your time, energy and money while you are dealing with her? Just joking.

When I saw this one it was "goddess", as long as she shared it with me and saw me at a good "level".


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Entropy3000 said:


> A practical example of this with humans is for a more dominant male to run another off. This of course can get very lame very quickly and the female can walk away from both. But it is essentially the same idea.


No no, running them off would be more along the lines of "mating rights". The article I was reading on this study was very concerned with pointing out that the males weren't actually preventing other males from mating or going and jumping selectively on a female. All they did was establish a rank amongst one another. The females then gravitated toward the winning males. Groupies if you will. The more dominant the male, the more groupies... even when that male didn't fit the predominant physical preferences.

Ugly rockstar, lots of respect from males, wealth = dominance (status) => lots of groupies.

Unfortunately, this fails to explain Justin Beiber.


----------



## Fozzy

Faithful Wife said:


> I don't think they really care about themselves, either. They are just bumbling around going "Gee, why am I not a *p*ssy assassin *like some of these other guys I see? Wait! Some of them wrote blogs so I can find out how? Show me where!" and then they drink the snake oil and believe they've learned some SCIENCE!!!!! but in reality, all they've done is read a douche blog.


I am so getting this made into a t-shirt.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> Lon, I fully understand you are not on the douche canoe team.
> 
> But will I stop talking about them? NO.
> 
> Any discussion where these idiotic things are discussed (not saying YOU are discussing it) then I'm right there with my DOUCHE CANOE sign and comments.


So, you're saying you're trolling?


----------



## treyvion

Fozzy said:


> I am so getting this made into a t-shirt.


I like


----------



## Created2Write

treyvion said:


> Some of us "sex rankers" are self-improvement minded. So we like to control things that can make outcomes more favorable for us.
> 
> I'm not saying I run anyone rigidly through a system at this time, but use it to better myself.
> 
> Theres a few things that would knock someone out of my perception and it depends on if i'm just trying to get laid or have a long term partner.


I'm self-improvement minded as well, but I _don't_ improve myself to get more sex. The moment that sex becomes the reason for my changes is the moment I lose myself entirely. I improve myself in the ways I think I need improving for either myself, or the betterment of my marriage and other relationships, and absolutely no other reasons. And, consequently, those areas that I improve are what cause my husband to be more sexually attracted to me because they are a apart of who I am, and nothing excites him more than seeing me embrace who I am as an individual.


----------



## Entropy3000

Created2Write said:


> Being "good" in bed requires one to be loving and generous, whether it's a ONS or a LTR. Many who buy into the sex rank idea care more about themselves than the person they're with.


Sex rank does exist. It is just at a certain level. It agian is just a way for expressing what people find superficially attractive.


----------



## Created2Write

Entropy3000 said:


> They are generally attractive traits. The can get you past hello.
> 
> Pool Guy
> 
> So I hear you say it is all about being good in bed. I guess there are other things you look for. I will not even guess. Height is a common one.
> 
> Now if you say it is the package well indeed we get this. Well it depends if you mean aggregate or a big package but I digress. But I could say the same thing about a owman.


My point is that it's not "all" about being good in bed, nor is it "all" about getting past hello. Focusing on those two things limits the interactions between males and females and makes it all about sex, when in reality men and women mingle for many different reasons, sex being one of them.


----------



## Entropy3000

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> No no, running off would be more along the lines of "mating rights". The article I was reading on this study was very concerned with pointing out that the males weren't actually preventing other males from mating or going and jumping selectively on a female. All they did was establish a rank amongst one another. The females then gravitated toward the winning males. Groupies if you will. The more dominant the male, the more groupies... even when that male didn't fit the predominant physical preferences.
> 
> Ugly rockstar, lots of respect from males, wealth = dominance (status) => lots of groupies.
> 
> Unfortunately, this fails to explain Justin Beiber.


I get what you are saying. I guess I was thinking about one male deferring to another.


----------



## Entropy3000

Created2Write said:


> My point is that it's not "all" about being good in bed, nor is it "all" about getting past hello. Focusing on those two things limits the interactions between males and females and makes it all about sex, when in reality men and women mingle for many different reasons, sex being one of them.


Where does this ALL come from?

This is not even in the way I think. I think in terms of aggregation of contributing factors. The whole concept of ALL is very foreign to me. I see it injected into the thread but I see people reading ALL where it does not exist. Not even implied.

It is arguing against a point that was never really made. It can become more than tedious to keep saying some, or often or possibly and so on. But what it comes off as is juding a person for saying there is something to consider. It borders on the thought police at times. Not saying it is you. But it is a constant theme in many ( NOT ALL ) threads these days. People can express their opinions. We can agree to disagree at times.


----------



## NextTimeAround

Entropy3000 said:


> Sex rank does exist. It is just at a certain level. It agian is just a way for expressing what people find superficially attractive.


or what people *personally* find attractive.

I've seen discussion of the "alpha female" but from the point of view of success in the work place. As we know success in the workplace does not guarantee success in marriage.

It seems to me that men's preferences are all over the place.... so that's a good thing for us. We can't predict what a man is going to prefer. And it gives those women who try to be alpha some rather sobering moments.


----------



## Created2Write

Entropy3000 said:


> Sex rank does exist. It is just at a certain level. It agian is just a way for expressing what people find superficially attractive.


I don't think so. I find it to be a way of consoling men who shoot to get women way out of their league and get rejected..."If I were different in xyz, she wouldn't have rejected me"...so they seek to make those changes, ceasing to be who they were before, to land the girls who stroke their ego, while not really understanding why they were rejected in the first place.


----------



## Entropy3000

NextTimeAround said:


> or what people *personally* find attractive.
> 
> I've seen discussion of the "alpha female" but from the point of view of success in the work place. As we know success in the workplace does not guarantee success in marriage.
> 
> It seems to me that men's preferences are all over the place.... so that's a good thing for us. We can't predict what a man is going to prefer. And it gives those women who try to be alpha some rather sobering moments.


No argument. These are persoanl preferences however the distribution is not flat. There are going to be trends. It is not all one way or the other. Personal preferences are commonly on a bell curve. It is statistical.

Most women are not attracted to a man weighing 400 lbs who has anger issues and smells bad and is in prison. If the samp,e is large enough the number of women will not be zero.


----------



## Created2Write

Entropy, I don't think it's "all" about anything. I was responding to a post where you mentioned I think it's all about being good in bed, and was just clarifying that I don't it's all about anything that's been discussed. 

I do think that many of those who buy into sex rank focus too much on how to get a woman in bed with them, with only a little(if any) regard to women's desires as individuals.


----------



## Entropy3000

Created2Write said:


> I don't think so. I find it to be a way of consoling men who shoot to get women way out of their league and get rejected..."If I were different in xyz, she wouldn't have rejected me"...so they seek to make those changes, ceasing to be who they were before, to land the girls who stroke their ego, while not really understanding why they were rejected in the first place.


You can choose to take that personal view. But many of us beleive that there is such a thing as attractiveness.

You have a very set view in how you define this. In no way do I share that view. So we must agree to disagree.

Hmmm sex rank focus. These words keep getting added out of no where. So things can exist and they can even have value without being a focus. That is adding more spin. The no true Scottsman fallacy again.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> all they've done is read a douche blog.


A douche who can *pick up women*. Doesn't matter anything else about him.

If being a douche, or wearing pink hello kitty tights, no shirt and a fedora for that matter, results in more sex with more women, I'm inclined to believe most young men will take it. At 16, I can only describe myself as STARVING. Intense desire for something you can't quite figure out how to get. Yeah, the idea of a relationship was nice, but not having one didn't feel like not being able to BREATHE. Not having sex felt like suffocating.

Most of the guys who read this stuff do get at least a marginal positive result from it - even if its simply from advice to stand up straight, ignore rejection fear, go talk to her, and handle rejection better. No game at all and such a dude is going to eventually get what he wants simply because he's taking a lot of shots.

The thing I've always wondered about the "douche" thing is, if all these things qualify as being a douche and women hate douches... why does being a douche get you laid more easily? Conundrum. I've become pretty efficient, and undeniably more successful than my younger clueless self. So, unless you think I'm lying... why do you think that is so?


----------



## Entropy3000

Created2Write said:


> Entropy, I don't think it's "all" about anything. I was responding to a post where you mentioned I think it's all about being good in bed, and was just clarifying that I don't it's all about anything that's been discussed.
> 
> I do think that many of those who buy into sex rank focus too much on how to get a woman in bed with them, with only a little(if any) regard to women's desires as individuals.


Fair enough, you shot down a group of traits / outwards signs. Then mentioned they do not mean he is good in bed. That inferred a criteria. So I was probing to see what you did see as valuable.


----------



## Created2Write

Entropy3000 said:


> You can choose to take that personal view. But many of beleive that there is such a thing as attractiveness.


Where did I say that I don't believe in attractiveness? I _do_ believe in attractiveness. I have said so many times before in this thread and in others. I just don't agree that sex rank is a synonym for attractiveness. 



> You have a very set view in how you define this. In no way do I share that view. So we must agree to disagree.
> 
> Hmmm sex rank focus. These words keep getting added out of no where. So things can exist and they can even have value without being a focus. That is adding more spin. The no true Scottsman fallacy again.


I added the sex rank focus phrase because that it what I see most of the time when men here talk about sex rank. Men whose wives aren't having sex with them are encouraged to "up their sex rank", instead of examining if there's a reason she's no longer attracted to him. Contrary to some beliefs on here, it doesn't matter how attractive a jerk attempts to be, he's still a jerk. Self-respecting women don't have sex with jerks. 

And on other forums, men who aren't getting laid as often as they want are flooded with tons of questions about his habits when pursuing a woman, what he says and does when he's out with her, his habits when trying to seduce her, his habits when he's actually in bed with her, what he does and says afterward...every single moment of the evening is dissected and discussed to see if he did anything "beta", or that could have lowered his sex rank. And when anyone questions what's being said, it's assumed that person is out of their mind or doesn't believe in attractiveness, yada yada yada. So, yes. I think they focus way too much on this. These men need sexual attention from women or they feel they have no value. Although some here seem to thrive on the negative attention as well.

Being the best version of ourselves is a great ambition, one I think we all should strive for. Having physical preferences is a part of nature. Wanting frequent and satisfying sex is a healthy, important standard to set for one's self. Nowhere have I said otherwise.


----------



## Lon

*Re: Re: Female ranking system*



Created2Write said:


> I do think that many of those who buy into sex rank focus too much on how to get a woman in bed with them, with only a little(if any) regard to women's desires as individuals.


As the one who first mentioned sex rank on this thread, I just want to state for the record that for me personally the whole idea has not been about how to bed a woman, rather as a model of understanding about sexual attraction for women (and largely about their sexual value) both on my personal level as well as for society as a whole. The same way that I use the Greek alphabet as a model of understanding about the sexual value and attraction of men by women on the societal level.


----------



## Lon

*Re: Re: Female ranking system*



DvlsAdvc8 said:


> So, you're saying you're trolling?


I think the term you meant to use was "flaming"


----------



## Created2Write

Lon said:


> As the one who first mentioned sex rank on this thread, I just want to state for the record that for me personally the whole idea has not been about how to bed a woman, *rather as a model of understanding about sexual attraction for women (and largely about their sexual value) both on my personal level as well as for society as a whole.* The same way that I use the Greek alphabet as a model of understanding about the sexual value and attraction of men by women on the societal level.


The bold is the definition I _would_ apply to the term sex rank if I hadn't seen so much evidence to the contrary.


----------



## Deejo

*Re: Re: Female ranking system*



Entropy3000 said:


> MILF
> Party Girl
> Cougar
> Size Queen
> Ball Buster
> Mistress
> Beyotch
> Skank
> Hottie
> Cutie
> OMFG
> Princess
> Goddess
> Entitled
> ...


And let's not forget ...

Bunny Boiler


----------



## Ikaika

Alpha woman - Lauren Bacall, Mae West and Billie Holiday... I really grew up in the wrong era.


----------



## always_alone

Entropy3000 said:


> MILF
> Party Girl
> Cougar
> Size Queen
> Ball Buster
> Mistress
> Beyotch
> Skank
> Hottie
> Cutie
> OMFG
> Princess
> Goddess
> Entitled
> ...


These are all categories that men apply to women, not ones that women apply to themselves.

My categories for women would go something like this:
-friends, 
-really cool people that I would be happy to have as friends, 
-nice and decent people, but who I probably wouldn't be friends with because we have nothing in common
-people I don't really have the time of day for because they are mean or otherwise icky

But I never actually think in terms of these categories, it's just in retrospect and when asked that I'd even come up with them at all.


----------



## Faithful Wife

I was JUST thinking about you always! Here's why;

http://talkaboutmarriage.com/mens-clubhouse/192986-women-being-too-masculine.html

Check out that body type chart.

Nice, huh?


----------



## always_alone

Entropy3000 said:


> No argument. These are persoanl preferences however the distribution is not flat. There are going to be trends. It is not all one way or the other. Personal preferences are commonly on a bell curve. It is statistical.


Lies, dammed lies, and statistics. And frankly, this is a pretty liberal (read nonsensical) application of the label statistics.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

Faithful Wife said:


> I was JUST thinking about you always! Here's why;
> 
> http://talkaboutmarriage.com/mens-clubhouse/192986-women-being-too-masculine.html
> 
> Check out that body type chart.
> 
> Nice, huh?


Lovely. #3 is really just #2 with a boob job, I guess that's what makes her curvy?


----------



## always_alone

Entropy3000 said:


> Not a fail for some guys. They do not care if they suck at sex.





DvlsAdvc8 said:


> A douche who can *pick up women*. Doesn't matter anything else about him.


SMH.

And they wonder why women aren't all thrilled to pieces because some random dude has deemed them sufficiently high sex rank to talk to.


----------



## Entropy3000

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> Lovely. #3 is really just #2 with a boob job, I guess that's what makes her curvy?


I disagree. #3 is curvy all over. I like her hips.


----------



## Entropy3000

always_alone said:


> Lies, dammed lies, and statistics. And frankly, this is a pretty liberal (read nonsensical) application of the label statistics.


So you disagree. What else is new? Indeed lets call something a lie because you do not want to agree with it. Life is NOT black and white. It is shades of grey and it is about distributions.

You disagree that people have preferences that may land on a bell curve? Really. Now that is off the bell curve in the denial end.


----------



## always_alone

Faithful Wife said:


> I was JUST thinking about you always! Here's why;
> 
> http://talkaboutmarriage.com/mens-clubhouse/192986-women-being-too-masculine.html
> 
> Check out that body type chart.
> 
> Nice, huh?


Yikes. Welcome to playboy nation.

TBH, I think women should just stop caring what men think of them or how they look. Just completely stop.


----------



## SlowlyGoingCrazy

Entropy3000 said:


> I disagree. #3 is curvy all over. I like her hips.


If she was in the same pose she would look the same other than her boobs. # 2 is stretched and her legs are apart.


----------



## Entropy3000

SlowlyGoingCrazy said:


> If she was in the same pose she would look the same other than her boobs. # 2 is stretched and her legs are apart.


I hear you but I guess I am just mesmerized by her. Be that as it may, I liked #3 but #2 and #4 were just fine.


----------



## always_alone

Entropy3000 said:


> So you disagree. What else is new? Indeed lets call something a lie because you do not want to agree with it. Life is NOT black and white. It is shades of grey and it is about distributions.
> 
> You disagree that people have preferences that may land on a bell curve? Really. Now that is off the bell curve in the denial end.


Well, enlighten us, then, about these distributions. What exactly does each axis represent? And are we sure the distribution is normal and bell shaped? There are ever so many other possibilities ...

Simply saying the words, "trend," "bell curve" and "statistics" does not an objective fact make.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lies,_damned_lies,_and_statistics


----------



## jld

always_alone said:


> TBH, I think women should just stop caring what men think of them or how they look. Just completely stop.


:iagree:


----------



## SimplyAmorous

always_alone said:


> TBH, I think women should just stop caring what men think of them or how they look. Just completely stop.


I feel so long as a woman holds on to what she feels makes her a good person, living within her own parameters...whatever that may be... where her personal boundaries are- so she is not compromising herself...to entertain another where it could come back to her hurt.. in this there is freedom.

As a woman, I enjoy dressing up and looking my best.. in this I feel good about myself..(I don't spend a lot of $$, or shop for designer clothes or anything like this)... if a Man doesn't like our style or judges we are "too this" or "too that"...he would not be a right fit for us anyway...

We need to treat ourselves with tender loving care 1st...to care some is OK....even well & good.. but in all things, use wisdom....if we are obsessed with feeling we must "live up to" or attain a fashion models looks / persona... it's only going to drag us down into hell....

Even some of those are so depressed, they take their own lives... if anyone was watching the Bachelor....twice on the show...Gia Allemand...







...she hung herself.. hanging on to a man who didn't want the same things she did.. marriage/ children.. why do women attach themselves to men who don't share the same vision/ dreams...there is so many fish in the sea!...it's very  ... 

You would THINK someone like her Had it all... though she, despite her physical beauty, was fighting many demons....


----------



## FrenchFry

I read this thread on my ride home today and I think Lon asked something akin to "Is the SITC trope really what goes on?"

Yes. I think women go more by archetypes than hierarchy. Some groups of women really reinforce the archetype you fall into, some don't. Back in the day, I really was the "Miranda" of my group of friends, but as we got older and stopped policing each other on the aspects of our personalities we found acceptable, the less rigid our roles were. So, I'm a still a dominant Miranda, but there is a good deal of Samantha, Charlotte and Carrie in me as well (even though I really don't like Carrie. )

No, I don't remember any of my friends saying what kind of man I should be going for. I don't remember saying "he's out of your league" to any of my friends. 

The website FW posted really tickled me as it first puts Anna Head of Vogue Wintour in the Alpha box, then says "beta women love clothes!!!!" Middle school.


----------



## jld

What a sad story, SA! AP mentioned a high school girl she knew doing that, too.

Women need to love themselves independently of anyone's loving them. But that is so hard to do. 

Ideally it comes from the parents. I think a husband can provide it if the parents don't, but it is best from the parents.

Again, such a sad story.


----------



## Lon

*Re: Re: Female ranking system*



always_alone said:


> These are all categories that men apply to women, not ones that women apply to themselves.
> 
> My categories for women would go something like this:
> -friends,
> -really cool people that I would be happy to have as friends,
> -nice and decent people, but who I probably wouldn't be friends with because we have nothing in common
> -people I don't really have the time of day for because they are mean or otherwise icky
> 
> But I never actually think in terms of these categories, it's just in retrospect and when asked that I'd even come up with them at all.


Yay! Finally an actual answer by an eligible commenter that actually addresses the original question directly!


----------



## MSP

SimplyAmorous said:


> As a woman, I enjoy dressing up and looking my best.. in this I feel good about myself..(I don't spend a lot of $$, or shop for designer clothes or anything like this)... if a Man doesn't like our style or judges we are "too this" or "too that"...he would not be a right fit for us anyway...


Men don't care about women's clothes. They're too busy imagining women without them.


----------



## nuclearnightmare

Pamvhv said:


> You know what level I hate. Perfect Pinterest Mom. I want to burn all their perfectly crafted parties to the ground.


This is a really funny post. Emoticons don't do it justice. I don't care for artsy hobbies either, but as a man there exists no peer pressure for me to take them up :rofl:


----------



## jld

MSP said:


> Men don't care about women's clothes. They're too busy imagining women without them.


:lol:


----------



## SimplyAmorous

MSP -you must have removed your quote... Personally I enjoyed the "Average Joe" programs.... I think I only caught 2.. those were the Beta boys I guess... more up my alley anyway.. yet I still love watching the Bachelor.. what can I say...the Drama those women cause with each other is quite entertaining!

It kinda blows my mind that these physically beautiful people struggle to find Romantic happiness.. I tend to think they have too many options & this can spoil the appreciation for committed love somehow..... but now I am being judgmental. I always look to gleam who appears the most genuine in heart on there... 



> *jld said*: What a sad story, SA! AP mentioned a high school girl she knew doing that, too.
> 
> *Women need to love themselves independently of anyone's loving them. But that is so hard to do.
> 
> Ideally it comes from the parents. I think a husband can provide it if the parents don't, but it is best from the parents.*


 Many parents are so messed up themselves... I tend to think the crowds we fall into has a huge effect on our outlook.. or how we see ourselves...is there a load of competition ...or do we encourage each other, have each others backs (not back-biting)....Even if it was just a Teacher who believes in you... a Grandparent... a youth group one felt a part of.....

It's about connection, feeling you belong somewhere...it all helps mold us to our best selves. ..if we feel their belief in us... ...we start to believe it in ourselves...every little bit helps.



> *MSP said*: *Men don't care about women's clothes. They're too busy imagining women without them*.


 Yes...that's the dog in you all.. I think even us women can take a disheveled man and imagine him being cleaned up a bit ...and swoon... though not that we're always undressing him....though there have been times !


----------



## kilgore

women are really that caddy and judgey with each other? despite us being the lesser gender, guys never really do that with other guys - judging every aspect of them


----------



## jld

SimplyAmorous said:


> Many parents are so messed up themselves... I tend to think the crowds we fall into has a huge effect on our outlook.. or how we see ourselves...is there a load of competition ...or do we encourage each other, have each others backs (not back-biting)....Even if it was just a Teacher who believes in you... a Grandparent... a youth group one felt a part of.....
> 
> It's about connection, feeling you belong somewhere...it all helps mold us to our best selves. ..if we feel their belief in us... ...we start to believe it in ourselves...every little bit helps.


Yes, my mom used to say, Be careful of the company you keep.

We all need unconditional love, someone and ideally, many, in our lives who don't judge, but just take us as we are. We all stumble. Our true friends can see the good in us despite all our mistakes.

I am so grateful for the friends I have made here. Friends in real life are great, too, but here I find myself saying things I would not necessarily admit in real life. And people have told me things here that have made me feel so much compassion for them. Sometimes I wish I could reach out and literally hug some people, just pour love into them, and heal them. 

But of course we settle for offering kind words, and maybe prayers.


----------



## nuclearnightmare

The alpha vs beta stuff is interesting because I can't help but always notice the highest scoring males on the alpha scale would invariably be crime bosses, gang leaders and other sociopaths. Now notice the qualities listed for the alpha female. Essentially this guys mirror image in the female world -- a kind of high functioning woman with narcissistic or histrionic personality disorder. I.e. in both genders someone at the very bottom of the conscience/character scale. Something is indeed off regarding this stuff........


----------



## MSP

SimplyAmorous said:


> MSP -you must have removed your quote...


Yeah, I deleted my post. I was being funny, but then decided it was in bad taste to make a joke about the TV show following what you said about the suicide of that girl. 

I'm currently having a tough time of things and my filter is somewhat broken.



SimplyAmorous said:


> It kinda blows my mind that these physically beautiful people struggle to find Romantic happiness.. I tend to think they have too many options & this can spoil the appreciation for committed love somehow.....


SA, you're exactly right and not being judgemental at all. I've done a lot of study on the psychology of choice. There are four very important aspects. 

1. The more choices, the more people get something called choice paralysis. Even when faced with a bunch of fruit jams at a supermarket, too many choices often sees people simply making no choice at all. 

2. The more important the decision, the more hesitation, second-guessing, and interestingly, poor choice-makers we are. 

3. People are awful at predicting their own happiness based on what they think they will feel about their current options. Really, we suck at it.

4. When it is possible to reverse a choice in the future, people will frequently do so. However, this almost never makes them happier. All it does is reduce their enjoyment of their initial choice.

So, when you have people with seemingly everything going for them, they have all the choices in the world. What that actually does is _reduces their happiness_. Of course, they may naturally be happy people, so they might not be miserable just because they look like the child of Cleopatra and George Clooney. But all else being equal, _more choice reduces happiness_. (There's one for the feminists. Sorry, couldn't resist, but it is quite regularly proven). 



SimplyAmorous said:


> Many parents are so messed up themselves... I tend to think the crowds we fall into has a huge effect on our outlook.. or how we see ourselves...is there a load of competition ...or do we encourage each other, have each others backs (not back-biting)....Even if it was just a Teacher who believes in you... a Grandparent... a youth group one felt a part of.....
> 
> It's about connection, feeling you belong somewhere...it all helps mold us to our best selves. ..if we feel their belief in us... ...we start to believe it in ourselves...every little bit helps.


According to all the studies I know of so far, the strongest correlation for happiness and longevity is--wait for it--good community bonds. I.e., family connections and social life. 

Kids are pretty much born happy, so long as they have their major needs met. If they have food, sleep, and affection, they love life. Adults complicate things thinking that they have a need for the perfect this and that in order to be fulfilled, but the secret to happy life is not what you add to it. The secret is to pare away all of the unnecessary things until you are left with what is important. Interestingly, this is the essence of many religious teachings, especially those of Jesus and Buddha. 



SimplyAmorous said:


> Yes...that's the dog in you all..


Oh, don't give me that, SA! You know you women love it when the man you love enjoys how you look.


----------



## jld

MSP said:


> According to all the studies I know of so far, the strongest correlation for happiness and longevity is--wait for it--good community bonds. I.e., family connections and social life.
> 
> Kids are pretty much born happy, so long as they have their major needs met. If they have food, sleep, and affection, they love life. Adults complicate things thinking that they have a need for the perfect this and that in order to be fulfilled, but the secret to happy life is not what you add to it.*The secret is to pare away all of the unnecessary things until you are left with what is important. Interestingly, this is the essence of many religious teachings, especially those of Jesus and Buddha. *


:iagree:


----------



## SimplyAmorous

MSP said:


> *Oh, don't give me that, SA! You know you women love it when the man you love enjoys how you look.*


 The truth is.. I absolutely ADORE the DOG in men...even wishing my H had a little more BITE to him... yeah...he could attack my leg and I'd be LOVING IT [email protected]#



> *SA, you're exactly right and not being judgemental at all. I've done a lot of study on the psychology of choice. There are four very important aspects.
> 
> 1. The more choices, the more people get something called choice paralysis. Even when faced with a bunch of fruit jams at a supermarket, too many choices often sees people simply making no choice at all. *...


 Thank you for sharing all of this.. I never heard of "Choice Paralysis"!



> *MSP said: *
> According to all the studies I know of so far, the strongest correlation for happiness and longevity is--wait for it--good community bonds. I.e., family connections and social life.
> 
> Kids are pretty much born happy, so long as they have their major needs met. If they have food, sleep, and affection, they love life. Adults complicate things thinking that they have a need for the perfect this and that in order to be fulfilled, but the secret to happy life is not what you add to it.* The secret is to pare away all of the unnecessary things until you are left with what is important. Interestingly, this is the essence of many religious teachings, especially those of Jesus and Buddha. *


Yep....







...not exactly what we all want to believe...we think we know a better way.. but really...it's this simple, isn't it..

I recently added a post on my Purpose thread...about the "HAPPY" Documentary.. in light of all you have said... copying & pasting ...



> *Simplyamorous said: *A good friend of mine suggested I watch
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ....it was on our streaming Netflix.. so our family watched it last week....eating pop corn... thought it might be a good mention on this thread...
> 
> A 1:47 introduction HERE..and Happy Trailer (Documentary 2012)
> 
> "Happy" takes us around the world, looking at different people in various economic situations, and, with the help of happiness science, gauging their level of happiness....it makes the compelling argument that once basic necessities like food and shelter are provided for, economic factors have relatively little to do with overall satisfaction in life.
> 
> Using a balance of scientific research and fascinating human stories, the filmmakers explore some of the non-material roots of happiness, and in the process, show that while there isn’t a formula for it, everyone can become happier.
> 
> Our circumstances, our job, income, social status, age and health accounts for another *10 % *of our happiness. But the really good news is that there is a great deal you can do to make yourself happier, as *40 %* of our overall happiness is determined by intentional behavior. These are things people can do on a regular basis to become happier.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The film points out that you can gain more happiness with exercise, being in nature and adding variety to your life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Search for Happiness .........Happy the movie: Director Roko Belic on Happiness and Empathy
> 
> One of my most profound experiences occurred when I spoke with one of the leading researchers of happiness in the world, Ed Diener, at the University of Illinois. He told me that a person's values are among the best predictors of their happiness.
> 
> **** People who value money, power, fame and good looks are less likely to be happy than people who value compassion, cooperation and a willingness to make the world a better place. That astounded me -- but it somehow made sense. People who express their love -- who rejoice in the health and happiness of others -- are more likely to feel loved and happy themselves.
> 
> I asked Ed Diener if there is a single key to happiness, a secret happy ingredient that every happy person in the world possesses. He said that the formula is different for everyone, but the one constant is good relationships. He said every happy person he's studied in over three decades of research had someone to love and someone to be loved by.
> 
> Happy -the Movie : Reviews From a Spiritual Perspective
> 
> Material happiness was explored. It was found that in the U.S., once a person makes $50,000/year, anything after that makes no difference in happiness. A rickshaw driver in India was said to be as happy as a middle-class U.S. citizen. Even though the rickshaw driver had little material comforts, he had an extensive neighborhood support system which greatly contributed to his happiness.
> 
> The film explored what places on earth are the happiest and which are the most unhappy. The most unhappy country was Japan where people work very long hours and literally work themselves to death. There is a term for it, *Karoshi*, which means death from overwork.
> 
> The film went all over the world looking for happiness. In Denmark, a single mom with two kids joined a co-housing community when she had financial difficulties. The film showed how co-housing communities take the financial burden off people and give them an extended family and sense of belonging which promotes a deep sense of happiness.
> 
> One especially moving section of the film for me was a demonstration of how love and connectedness can replace bullying in a school. Michael Pritchard, an emotional healer and stand-up comic, was shown giving a class on cultivating emotional intelligence to an assembly of middle-school children. He asked students to get up and tell their feelings about being bullied. As a result, there was an immediate and profound transformation from separateness to connectedness in the whole room.
> 
> 
> 
> The most surprising thing to me in this documentary was...the 10% being "circumstantial"....I tend to put much weigh on circumstances in my life. ... thinking .. It will all go to hell if _________ or ________ happens... (I tend to be quite a worrier in certain areas...like health & well being)...
> 
> But according to what was learned here..... I am way off.. that we humans, if we are generally happy / connected/ empathetic ...it's our daily walk...can bounce back much quicker than we may realize!.... So that was very encouraging...
> 
> There is a much heavier weight on our attitudes...(that 40%)...with those intentional actions ..basically Happiness is a choice !
Click to expand...


----------



## MSP

SimplyAmorous said:


> The truth is.. I absolutely ADORE the DOG in men...even wishing my H had a little more BITE to him... yeah...he could attack my leg and I'd be LOVING IT [email protected]#


Tease him. Flirt and then wait for him to pursue you. Play fight and wrestle. Maybe? But what you have seems to be working and you know what they say--if it ain't broke . . . 



SimplyAmorous said:


> I recently added a post on my Purpose thread...about the "HAPPY" Documentary.. in light of all you have said... copying & pasting ...


I've seen it.  I didn't learn anything new, but it reinforced stuff I had already discovered. I recommended it to a friend just recently, actually.


----------



## Fozzy

FrenchFry said:


> I read this thread on my ride home today and I think Lon asked something akin to "Is the SITC trope really what goes on?"
> 
> Yes. I think women go more by archetypes than hierarchy. Some groups of women really reinforce the archetype you fall into, some don't. Back in the day, I really was the "Miranda" of my group of friends, but as we got older and stopped policing each other on the aspects of our personalities we found acceptable, the less rigid our roles were. So, I'm a still a dominant Miranda, but there is a good deal of Samantha, Charlotte and Carrie in me as well (even though I really don't like Carrie. )
> 
> No, I don't remember any of my friends saying what kind of man I should be going for. I don't remember saying "he's out of your league" to any of my friends.
> 
> The website FW posted really tickled me as it first puts Anna Head of Vogue Wintour in the Alpha box, then says "beta women love clothes!!!!" Middle school.


Archetypes vs hierarchy. That actually makes quite a bit of sense (see earlier in thread SAHM vs Career Woman vs Stepford vs....). I would imagine categorizing yourself in a distinct role vs a different step on the same ladder actually separates you MORE from each other. A male pecking order established by social power may have a lot of competition on it, but everyone is basically judged on the same set of criteria more or less. On the flipside, a SAHM and Career Woman each consider themselves superior because they're looking at it with a different set of criteria to establish who's "better".

And hey, it only took 12 pages to get us there!


----------



## Entropy3000

always_alone said:


> Yikes. Welcome to playboy nation.
> 
> TBH, *I think women should just stop caring what men think of them* or how they look. Just completely stop.


UFB :scratchhead:


----------



## Entropy3000

always_alone said:


> Well, enlighten us, then, about these distributions. What exactly does each axis represent? And are we sure the distribution is normal and bell shaped? There are ever so many other possibilities ...
> 
> Simply saying the words, "trend," "bell curve" and "statistics" does not an objective fact make.
> 
> Lies, damned lies, and statistics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


I am telling you that data can be represented in many dimensions dear lady. I personally think spacially.

You can pick any parameter or parameters you desire and make any kind of matrix you want. And you will find that there will be a distribution on any given set that will fall into a bell curve. Some would say this is not rocket science but they would be wrong. It is.

If you were to poll 1000 men and show them a series of pictures of the body type they would like in a woman you would find that some men like athletic looking women, some like heavier women. Most would like those in between. You could choose to give them one vote only to keep it simple.










Use the above as a template and not a specific case.

We could aggregate the data and get single a bell curve. Or maybe the above represents males 40 and above and 39 and below. We may find that the distributions by age become skewed or we may find that they do not vary by much.

You could map % of body fat if you wanted against the selected the number of men who picked the woman in that range. But the number of things you could graph are vertually endless and only limited by your own mind. 

This is a very straightforward concept. If you were a matmetician or an Engineer you would be used to analyzing such distributions. You could hardly avoid it. Most things in nature fall into a continuum on some plane. So are more dynamic and a function of harmonic motion.

We could readily plot mens heights versus the number of women's ideal height for their mate. Or we could be more complex and let them pic a range weighting the values they select.

Now literally the above graph compares the heights of men versu women in the sample. We could graph the highest educational level attained. IQ, weight, how far one could throw a softball, number of sexual partners, age ... on and on and on.

A bell curve is not the only possible curve / shape for data.










Other ways to graph data might be as it pertains to virtuals systems. Graphing their CPU, Memory and Network utilization. So you end up with a set of graphs over time. Those graphs tell you something about the systems processing load. We may care about averages or we may care about bursting.

But graphing things can help one think of things in relation in a spacial way. Fear of graphs... hmm. What phobia is that? I am indeed stating facts. You let the data determine the trend for that sample group. The value of such data is in the eye of the beholder.

You do not have to have perfect or exact data to gleen information from it. We do this all of the time. In fact my current project does this. I am going into general availability with a project that has a very small amout of time to decide whether the transaction is fraudulent or not. We must make a determination very quickly. Good data quickly is more valable than perfact data seconds later. Perfect data is too late. You can sense and object flying towrads you that is hard to make out perfect detail, YET you duck because you have seen enough of the object to know you need to move. You did not need a perfect picture to make a determination. It is about dealing with risk.


----------



## RandomDude

DoF said:


> You mean like "she is a complete ***** and I hate her cause she looks better than me" or "she is SO nice/I like her cause I'm prettier/look better"?


Lol

And tis why I find females very amusing


----------



## NextTimeAround

nuclearnightmare said:


> The alpha vs beta stuff is interesting because I can't help but always notice the highest scoring males on the alpha scale would invariably be crime bosses, gang leaders and other sociopaths. Now notice the qualities listed for the alpha female. Essentially this guys mirror image in the female world -- a kind of high functioning woman with narcissistic or histrionic personality disorder. I.e. in both genders someone at the very bottom of the conscience/character scale. Something is indeed off regarding this stuff........


Just to dovetail this thought, let's look at a (tragic) real life example: Steenkamp and Pistorius were briefly the South African alpha couple.

Her documentary is interesting given the prices that she paid to be in that exalted but brief position.

Supposedly, she got a law degree but ultimately preferred to bleach her hair, show her cleavage and make duckfaces at the camera for a fee. At least with her (purported) law degree, she could have changed the world for the better (ie Human rights, environmental.......)

Even the photo of her and Pistorius that gets shown a lot, it looks as if she is smirking. 

and what did all her manufactured alphaness get her but a hotheaded anger management blemished alpha male.

RIP, and it's a cautionary tale.

Have a look: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-MedbKo8mgs


----------



## Lyris

Queen Bees and Wannabes: Helping Your Daughter Survive Cliques, Gossip, Boyfriends, and the New Realities of Girl World: Rosalind Wiseman: 9780307454447: Amazon.com: Books

Girls, not women. But some people never grow up.

I'm only friends with beautiful women. I like to be surrounded by beauty


----------



## Lyris

So my categories are:

Hot enough to be FOL (friend of Lyris)
Not hot enough to be FOL

Other categories exist relating to wit, charm, Edwardian accomplishments such as screen painting and pianoforte. I have spreadsheets and mathematically accurate bell curves. 

I also have very accurate curves generally


----------



## always_alone

Entropy3000 said:


> Fear of graphs... hmm. What phobia is that? I am indeed stating facts. You let the data determine the trend for that sample group. The value of such data is in the eye of the beholder.


UFB, to be sure.

My point had nothing to do with whether or not graphs were useful ways of analyzing information. Just that not all distributions are normal bell curves, and that saying "bell curve" and "statistics" doesn't make what you are saying true.

Clearly you know this already, so why are you fighting me about it? Do you fear attractiveness cannot be rendered so easily on a bell curve, as height and weight may be?

No? Then, again, please tell me exactly what axes you are using to get your bell curve of attractiveness, and show me it's ever so normal distribution. 

For example, are you saying most men will choose the same picture, given a finite range of body types? And if so, what is the scale you'd be using? Are we back to saying that "attractiveness" is somewhere in the healthy weight range?


----------



## always_alone

Lyris said:


> So my categories are:
> 
> Hot enough to be FOL (friend of Lyris)
> Not hot enough to be FOL


My main criteria is sanity, which may be why I've never really met the judgy, catty, looks-obsessed women described in these threads.


----------



## FrenchFry

It's not particularly isolating unless you are surrounded by middle schoolers. Middle school is pretty rough in that regard, but like most people, we grow out of it. My friends are all socioeconomic levels, career, SAHM whatever. The common bond is we all rock. 

Like I said, some groups really reinforce their roles. I don't hang out in those groups. I like to watch them, they make great TV but as a human, I like human friends.

The catty thing, I don't experience because I don't have catty friends. My husband has catty friends and it's endlessly amusing to me but I'm glad they are his friends and not mine--the ones that aren't catty are mine too. I think it's really funny that men don't think they are catty and I literally watch them gossip about each other in front of me.

I get along with women so my categories are (SITC quizzes notwithstanding)

*Women who would like to hang out with me.
*Women who wouldn't like to hang out with me.

and

*Women whom I've hung out with so much that they are honorary sisters. The common bond between all these women is at some point we've all been in jams and are here for each other.


----------



## always_alone

Fozzy said:


> Archetypes vs hierarchy. That actually makes quite a bit of sense (see earlier in thread SAHM vs Career Woman vs Stepford vs....). I would imagine categorizing yourself in a distinct role vs a different step on the same ladder actually separates you MORE from each other. A male pecking order established by social power may have a lot of competition on it, but everyone is basically judged on the same set of criteria more or less. On the flipside, a SAHM and Career Woman each consider themselves superior because they're looking at it with a different set of criteria to establish who's "better".
> 
> And hey, it only took 12 pages to get us there!


Not sure I'm wholly sold on the archetypes description, but it does occur to me that you seem to be assuming here that women are also ranking each other hierarchically to establish a pecking order.

And I just don't see that in IRL. I may describe someone as a housewife or a corporate ladder climber, but it doesn't mean I think one is better than the other, or that I'm better.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Lol,

Why do these types of threads always seem remind me of that underworld game called " _The Kansas Shuffle_ ",from the movie, Lucky Number Slevin ?

I see the usual plot, the " confidence artists " playing on the baser nature of the human psyche , the misdirection and the subterfuge.

" _In Kansas City,they look right... ...and you... go left _"
Lucky Number Slevin ~ Bruce Willis.


----------



## FrenchFry

always_alone said:


> My main criteria is sanity, which may be why I've never really met the judgy, catty, looks-obsessed women described in these threads.


I do know some women who are looks obsessed, I could be one of them but they aren't catty like you see on tv-- which is why I like them. I think they are little judgy, but not in a way they would turn down a genuine friend

We are all a little weird IMO, but I look for the weird that works for me.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Faithful Wife

over20 said:


> I hesitated to share this...but here it goes....My husband submitted my nude pics to Playboy and Gallery in my early-mid twenties. Gallery accepted them, of course. Playboy has terms of agreement that hubs and I could not accept and abide by. Females, hands down as I stated before, judge other women based on beauty. I feel this is the female ranking system in a nutshell.


What does your nude pics in a publication have to do with women judging each other based on beauty?


----------



## Faithful Wife

My friends are all gypsy's, tramps, and thieves. But they are all also hot. And regardless of their low positions, some of them are also rich.


----------



## jld

FrenchFry said:


> We are all a little weird IMO, but I look for the weird that works for me.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Faithful Wife

Faithful Wife said:


> What does your nude pics in a publication have to do with women judging each other based on beauty?


Ok wait...I think I get what over20 was trying to say. Something like "don't hate me because I'm beautiful, which is evidenced by my nude pics being published". Is that it, over20?

Because....wow. 

I'm a beautiful woman, too. And yet, I don't feel other women judging me or being mean to me. Perhaps it isn't your "beauty" that they are reacting to if women are being judgmental of you? Just sayin'.


----------



## Anon Pink

over20 said:


> I hesitated to share this...but here it goes....My husband submitted my nude pics to Playboy and Gallery in my early-mid twenties. Gallery accepted them, of course. Playboy has terms of agreement that hubs and I could not accept and abide by. Females, hands down as I stated before, judge other women based on beauty. I feel this is the female ranking system in a nutshell.


:rofl:

Oh dear LORD!!!!

You, who advocate abstinence, you who suggest purity rings and purity pledges for daughters... Your husband submitted nude pics of you for other men to oogle at. 

:scratchhead: and you don't see the inconsistency there?

Okay hot stuff, whatever floats your boat!


:rofl: I'm dying here! :rofl:


----------



## always_alone

FrenchFry said:


> I do know some women who are looks obsessed, I could be one of them but they aren't catty like you see on tv-- which is why I like them. I think they are little judgy, but not in a way they would turn down a genuine friend
> 
> We are all a little weird IMO, but I look for the weird that works for me.


Ya, true. I'm sure plenty see my brand of sanity as more than a tad crazy.

But, honestly, I can't even watch, let alone hang out with, what's been labeled "real" housewife behaviour on TV. Petty, catty, judgy, clique-y, self-branded superiority --don't have time for any of it.


----------



## Anon Pink

always_alone said:


> I'm sure plenty see my brand of sanity as more than a tad crazy.


I love this line!!!!!


----------



## Anon Pink

I rank women. They're either fun or no fun. I get along with all types as long as they're fun. If they take themselves too seriously, if they're too judgey, phony, or plastic, they rank pretty low in my book no matter what they look like, how they dress or how much money they appear to have.


----------



## Dollystanford

Women who have my sense of humour and those who don't
Women who know the difference between 'there', 'their' and 'they're' and those who don't
Women who think pyjamas and Ugg boots are suitable attire to go to the shops those who don't

Looks are irrelevant (I am, of course, hot. Although sadly I've never had pics of my fangita published in a porn mag. Never too late though eh? Perhaps for my 40th next year?)


----------



## Faithful Wife

Dollystanford said:


> Women who think pyjamas and Ugg boots are suitable attire to go to the shops those who don't


----------



## Ikaika

Dollystanford said:


> Women who have my sense of humour and those who don't
> 
> Women who know the difference between 'there', 'their' and 'they're' and those who don't
> 
> Women who think pyjamas and Ugg boots are suitable attire to go to the shops those who don't
> 
> 
> 
> Looks are irrelevant (I am, of course, hot. Although sadly I've never had pics of my fangita published in a porn mag. Never too late though eh? Perhaps for my 40th next year?)



And, there are times when their boots were made for walking because they're only trying to get to the other side of the road rather than trying to draw attention to themselves. 

Btw, not a woman here


----------



## Faithful Wife

I guess I have three groups of women in my life:

*BFF's

*acquaintances 

*family

The BFF category are those who have been long term friends and I know they will always be my friend. There are a small handful of these women. I hand picked them long ago, and they are still and always my first pick. We have grown up together, changed in and out of marriages, moved all around the world sometimes having a long distance friendship...been through tragedies of all types. Still my girls after all these years and just keeps getting better.

Acquaintances, meaning, acquaintances I also hang out with as friends at times, like I have some really fab co-workers and clients who are also friends. I can't say for sure they will be my friend forever but for now, I am having fun times with them and love getting to know them. I would refer to them as my friend, not acquaintance if speaking about them to someone else, because acquaintance sounds rude. But I generally have anywhere from 5 to 25 of these types of friends...and I classify them as acquaintances above because people do come and go in your life, and until I really know someone I don't really count on their friendship. I just enjoy it. I also consider my mentors in the acquaintance category, and I have had several great ones. 

I have three women in my family who I love so dearly and get that certain special family love women can have for each other. The other women in my family are great too but these three are the ones who continually improve my life by them being in it.

I love all my wimmins!


----------



## ASummersDay

No offense intended to the OP, but just the phrase "ranking system" makes my skin crawl in this context. It reminds me of the PUA types who rank women as though they were a car or cut of steak. For me attraction is way too complicated for that.

Anyway, I think women rank each other on looks to some extent, but by no means is that the only factor involved. I'd go into more detail but I'm on my phone and just don't have the ambition for that.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## SurpriseMyself

MSP said:


> Women play socio-political games way more than men and they absolutely rank each other in their heads. My mother actually told me this stuff when I was quite young and clueless. She also told me that women mostly dress to compete against other women, rather than to impress men. Several women I've talked to have since said the same thing.
> 
> And talk to an overweight girl sometime and hear how much she feels judged by thinner girls. This may or may not be the case--I am not in their shoes--but they certainly feel like it is. Or talk to a girl who doesn't have the money to shop for expensive clothing and how she feels when hanging out with a group of rich girls.
> 
> Men rank each other by achievement and physical strength and that's about it. For women, it's looks, husband, kids, parenting ability, age, popularity, income, and whatever the heck else. Wanna know how to gauge a women's rank? Listen to the topics that come up when other women gossip about her.


Sorry, but that is just ugly. I stay far away from women like you. You raise the mean girls.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Anon Pink

ebp123 said:


> Sorry, but that is just ugly. I stay far away from women like you.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


MSP is a dude.


----------



## Dollystanford

I might start picking and choosing my female friends based on whether or not they can beat me in an arm wrestling match

Or perhaps a staring contest? I need to think this through


----------



## SurpriseMyself

Anon Pink said:


> MSP is a dude.


I'm sure they are quite the power couple. Shes probably taught him how to spot cheap handbags, etc.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Fozzy said:


> *On the flipside, a SAHM and Career Woman each consider themselves superior because they're looking at it with a different set of criteria to establish who's "better".
> 
> And hey, it only took 12 pages to get us there*!


 I just want to point this out.. as primarily a Stay at Home Mom with 0 degree-able skills to claim to my name...I would never think I am superior over a working Mother...

I feel she has it harder/ less time (just as I feel about my Husband working) in comparison to me... yet this is my choice, his preferred choice as well...and we are HAPPY with it's lifestyle...

As I also understand (reading many posts here)... many women are happier working!...what they do brings them purpose & Joy...this is what matters for us all...and, of course, to stay afloat financially, supporting our families. 

To point out how less superior I feel ...I also acknowledge the Risks in my choice...these are always pounded on those threads...I have weighed them time & time again.. yet still choose this role... 

I only look at other women -based on character, not what they Do, or don't do.. of course if I feel like they "look down" on me for not having as much money, or I lack intelligence....I would recoil from them.. I can't say this has ever happened in real life though... Nor do I think SAHM's kids have an advantage or they are better, NOPE..on both sides of this fence..there are Great kids and messed up kids..nothing is that black & white...nor will it ever be. 

If anything, I may struggle to not compare myself to the working woman with the high powered Job.. not because she may have more $$ but she has done MORE with her life.. . I have to push this down (this comparing) & accept myself for who I am & the role I have chosen to play...simple as it may be...reminding myself I am "enough".. I am needed and loved right where I am.

I always try to convey these thoughts on those threads...


----------



## Ikaika

SimplyAmorous said:


> I just want to point this out.. as primarily a Stay at Home Mom with 0 degree-able skills to claim to my name...I would never think I am superior over a working Mother...
> 
> I feel she has it harder/ less time (just as I feel about my Husband working) in comparison to me... yet this is my choice, his preferred choice as well...and we are HAPPY with it's lifestyle...
> 
> As I also understand (reading many posts here)... many women are happier working!...what they do brings them purpose & Joy...this is what matters for us all...and, of course, to stay afloat financially, supporting our families.
> 
> To point out how less superior I feel ...I also acknowledge the Risks in my choice...these are always pounded on those threads...I have weighed them time & time again.. yet still choose this role...
> 
> I only look at other women -based on character, not what they Do, or don't do.. of course if I feel like they "look down" on me for not having as much money, or I lack intelligence....I would recoil from them.. I can't say this has ever happened in real life though... Nor do I think SAHM's kids have an advantage or they are better, NOPE..on both sides of this fence..there are Great kids and messed up kids..nothing is that black & white...nor will it ever be.
> 
> If anything, I may struggle to not compare myself to the working woman with the high powered Job.. not because she may have more $$ but she has done MORE with her life.. . I have to push this down (this comparing) & accept myself for who I am & the role I have chosen to play...simple as it may be...reminding myself I am "enough".. I am needed and loved right where I am.
> 
> I always try to convey these thoughts on those threads...



Years ago when I was a co-PI on research grant that extended over a five year span we needed an admin assistant. Granted, it was important that this person understood or at least could quickly learn about managing federal research grants. However, it was even more important that this person was organized and was able to manage some very fickle and at times immature staff (graduate students, post-doc, etc). We interviewed at least five different candidates, I pushed hard for this woman who had been out of the work place for years because she was a SAHM. We hired her, and turned out to be the best decision we made. After our grant was done, she was recruited by other labs and is still very much a valuable asset where she is currently working. 

She had attributes as as a SAHM that other candidates just could not match. So, SA, don't sell yourself short.


----------



## RandomDude

Lyris said:


> So my categories are:
> 
> Hot enough to be FOL (friend of Lyris)
> *Not hot enough to be FOL*
> 
> Other categories exist relating to wit, charm, Edwardian accomplishments such as screen painting and pianoforte. I have spreadsheets and mathematically accurate bell curves.
> 
> I also have very accurate curves generally


Lol, do they cramp your style?


----------



## memyselfandi

Of course us females are the alphas over the males!! Who woulda thunk huh??


----------



## always_alone

Dollystanford said:


> I might start picking and choosing my female friends based on whether or not they can beat me in an arm wrestling match
> 
> Or perhaps a staring contest? I need to think this through


Thumb-wrestling is what the coolest kids do, don'tcha know.


----------



## Miss Taken

Can't speak for other women but I don't rank other women and don't see why it would matter as much to women as it seems to matter to men (at least the men on TAM). 

Generally speaking, women are more passive than men when it comes to the instigating of relationships and sex. I have never needed to do a lot of work to attract a mate and any "work" I did, wasn't difficult to do. 

I've spoken on TAM before about male game vs. female game and have when single, used my own "game" to get a guy to ask me out so I know there's more to it than this but the old, "just show up" seems to work just fine. I imagine it's the same for most women. So I don't think that there's a need to rank each other as I don't think the "competition" is as fierce to land a man as it is for a man to land a woman. 

I just don't see a point for women at least as to why they should bother trying to determine their sex-rank or hierarchy... While crudely stated, I think Chris Rock had a point here that’s related to what I’m trying to say. From a stand-up routine:



> It’s easy for women to turn down sex . . . . Y’all like, “Why can’t you turn it down? I do it all the time. Why can’t you say ‘no’? I say ‘no.” See, it’s easy for y’all. You know why? ‘Cause every woman in here; ever since you were thirteen, every guy you’ve met has been trying to fvck you.
> 
> That’s right. Women are offered d!ck every day. Every woman in here gets offered d!ck at least three times a week. Three times a day, sh!t! That’s right, every time a man’s being nice to you, all he’s doing is offering d!ck. That’s all it is. “Can I get that for you? _(How about some d!ck?)_“ “Could I help you with that? (_Could I help you to some d!ck? Do you need some d!ck?_)"
> 
> Nobody offers us sh!t. We got to fend for ourselves. We can’t believe it when we get an offer. We’re like, “Damn, this is my lucky day”


And another:



> "Pvssy costs money; d!ck is free. Any money you spend on d!ck is a bad investment."


There definitely are women that try to "compete" for a man or even male attention. Those aren't the kind of women that I'd be friends with though. Of course everyone loves attention and flattery but needing to "attention-wh0re" yourself out for it is probably due to other issues I don't want to touch on with a ten-footer.

Further, as much as I'm willing to make the man I feel loved and desired when I'm with him; I won't "chase" him to get him to choose me. If that's what he needs, he's not my cup of tea. I just imagine that a man like that requires more stroking to his ego than the part of him that can bring us _both _pleasure.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

> *drerio said:* Years ago when I was a co-PI on research grant that extended over a five year span we needed an admin assistant. Granted, it was important that this person understood or at least could quickly learn about managing federal research grants. *However, it was even more important that this person was organized and was able to manage some very fickle and at times immature staff (graduate students, post-doc, etc)*.* We interviewed at least five different candidates, I pushed hard for this woman who had been out of the work place for years because she was a SAHM. We hired her, and turned out to be the best decision we made. After our grant was done, she was recruited by other labs and is still very much a valuable asset where she is currently working. *
> 
> She had attributes as as a SAHM that other candidates just could not match. So, SA, don't sell yourself short.


Thank you for this little story Drerio....Some may have felt you took a chance/ a risk on her ! Happy some can see out of the box...

Myself...I have ALWAYS enjoyed working with the Public....Some hate it but I was never one of those... I enjoyed the new faces coming in...I am friendly & I beam in that atmosphere...I've always been very organized as well...when I was in Dietary, they always put me in the lead as I was their fastest employee on the line....and we got out of there early on those nights....I can kick a$$ when I do work.. whether it is moving... or communicating with customers, I enjoy Both...I believe I would make a fine Secretary as well... but here I am.. for now.. 



> *Miss Taken said*: *Further, as much as I'm willing to make the man I feel loved and desired when I'm with him; I won't "chase" him to get him to choose me.* If that's what he needs, he's not my cup of tea. I just imagine that a man like that requires more stroking to his ego than the part of him that can bring us both pleasure.


 I feel as you do, that it's best to allow the man to show his intentions ....to seek us out.. this has always meant a great deal to me ... I wouldn't want to take this away from my experience...beings I was looking for commitment / marriage/ family ... not just a fling... 

Whereas if I was the chaser... I wouldn't feel as sought after -even if I did manage to hook him... 

....I tend to feel the woman holds some power if the man is the pursuer... maybe that offends some, I don't know.. but I see the odds lessening for something long term when the women pursues.. that's just my mindset..

If one was just looking for sex for the night, of course none of this matters. She'd likely score 90% of the time ..


----------



## MSP

ebp123 said:


> I'm sure they are quite the power couple. Shes probably taught him how to spot cheap handbags, etc.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Dollystanford said:


> Women who know the difference between 'there', 'their' and 'they're' and those who don't


I do get the 3 theirs mixed up on occasion (and I know it shows on this forum)... so I would be on your ousted "SUCK list" for women.


----------



## MSP

Mrs. John Adams said:


> I don't rank...I try my best not to label...I look at people individually and give them the respect they deserve. My dad beat my butt one time because some man drove by and splashed water on me and I called him a nut. He made a great impression on me....RESPECT
> 
> When you pigeon hole people into rankings or groups...you do them a great disservice.
> 
> We are all individuals...with different personalities....and while we may have some similarities...we are still different.
> 
> I do not want to be judged or ranked or compared...I want to be me.
> 
> Life is not a competition. We do the best we can with the cards we have been dealt.
> 
> I am ME...take me or leave me....it matters not to me...I have the love of a good man...i have wonderful kids and grand kids...I have fantastic parents...I travel to places I only dreamed of....
> 
> Go ahead...rank me...will it change a thing? uhh ...nope


Excellent post!


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Mrs. John Adams said:


> I don't rank...*I try my best not to label...I look at people individually and give them the respect they deserve. *My dad beat my butt one time because some man drove by and splashed water on me and I called him a nut. He made a great impression on me....RESPECT
> 
> *When you pigeon hole people into rankings or groups...you do them a great disservice.
> 
> We are all individuals...with different personalities....and while we may have some similarities...we are still different.
> 
> I do not want to be judged or ranked or compared...I want to be me.
> 
> Life is not a competition. We do the best we can with the cards we have been dealt.*
> 
> I am ME...take me or leave me....it matters not to me...I have the love of a good man...i have wonderful kids and grand kids...I have fantastic parents...I travel to places I only dreamed of....
> 
> Go ahead...rank me...will it change a thing? uhh ...nope


Love the spirit of your post ... Mrs John Adams !


----------



## Lon

*Re: Re: Female ranking system*



SimplyAmorous said:


> I do get the 3 theirs mixed up on occasion (and I know it shows on this forum)... so I would be on your ousted "SUCK list" for women.


My phone often gets the therez wrong too, but in my mind I don't make mistakes.


----------



## heartsbeating

There are those who speak Whovian and those who don't.

Everything else is just trivial.


----------



## Fozzy

Lyris said:


> Queen Bees and Wannabes: Helping Your Daughter Survive Cliques, Gossip, Boyfriends, and the New Realities of Girl World: Rosalind Wiseman: 9780307454447: Amazon.com: Books
> 
> Girls, not women. But some people never grow up.
> 
> I'm only friends with beautiful women. I like to be surrounded by beauty


Just ordered this for my 9 yr old


----------



## Fozzy

ASummersDay said:


> No offense intended to the OP, but just the phrase "ranking system" makes my skin crawl in this context. It reminds me of the PUA types who rank women as though they were a car or cut of steak. For me attraction is way too complicated for that.
> 
> Anyway, I think women rank each other on looks to some extent, but by no means is that the only factor involved. I'd go into more detail but I'm on my phone and just don't have the ambition for that.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


No offense taken 

The "ranking system" I was referring to is more of a social pecking order among your own gender, rather than a measure of attractiveness.


----------



## Lyris

Fozzy said:


> Just ordered this for my 9 yr old


It's the book Tina Fey based Mean Girls on


----------



## Caribbean Man

Mrs. John Adams said:


> *I am ME...take me or leave me....it matters not to me...I have the love of a good man...i have wonderful kids and grand kids...I have fantastic parents...I travel to places I only dreamed of...*.
> 
> Go ahead...rank me...will it change a thing? uhh ...nope


Yup :iagree:

The only way to win the _Kansas Shuffle_ is to never , ever play it.
Whenever you see the " confidence artist " coming your way, you turn and _run_ in the opposite direction.


----------



## over20

Faithful Wife said:


> What does your nude pics in a publication have to do with women judging each other based on beauty?


I was using that as an example of how women can sometimes judge each other to harshly based on beauty. It can be a good thing or bad thing, but it does exist.


----------



## Lyris

over20 said:


> I was using that as an example of how women can sometimes judge each other to harshly based on beauty. It can be a good thing or bad thing, but it does exist.


That makes no sense. Women have nothing to do with you being in a porn magazine. Your husband sent photos in, male editors presumably decided whether they would be published and then male readers used the photos as masturbation aids.

Where in any of that are women judging you for being beautiful?

Or are you saying that because you're beautiful enough to be published in porn magazines, other women are jealous and judge you harshly? Doubtful. I took a photo of my boobs to send to my husband this morning that frankly should be hung in a museum. With the right light I have no doubt I could get published in the hot wife section of a magazine, if such things exist any more. And yet I have lots of close women friends who have been in my life for many years. 

So if you have problems with other women, look more deeply.


----------



## Dollystanford

If I send someone a pic of my labia minora could they please judge and give me marks out of ten (no time wasters please)


----------



## TiggyBlue

Lyris said:


> I took a photo of my boobs to send to my husband this morning that frankly should be hung in a museum.


That really should be in your signature.


----------



## treyvion

Lyris said:


> That makes no sense. Women have nothing to do with you being in a porn magazine. Your husband sent photos in, male editors presumably decided whether they would be published and then male readers used the photos as masturbation aids.
> 
> Where in any of that are women judging you for being beautiful?
> 
> Or are you saying that because you're beautiful enough to be published in porn magazines, other women are jealous and judge you harshly? Doubtful. I took a photo of my boobs to send to my husband this morning that frankly should be hung in a museum. With the right light I have no doubt I could get published in the hot wife section of a magazine, if such things exist any more. And yet I have lots of close women friends who have been in my life for many years.
> 
> So if you have problems with other women, look more deeply.


They must be staggering.


----------



## Anon Pink

Lyris said:


> That makes no sense. Women have nothing to do with you being in a porn magazine. Your husband sent photos in, male editors presumably decided whether they would be published and then male readers used the photos as masturbation aids.
> 
> Where in any of that are women judging you for being beautiful?
> 
> Or are you saying that because you're beautiful enough to be published in porn magazines, other women are jealous and judge you harshly? Doubtful. I *took a photo of my boobs to send to my husband this morning that frankly should be hung in a museum. * With the right light I have no doubt I could get published in the hot wife section of a magazine, if such things exist any more. And yet I have lots of close women friends who have been in my life for many years.
> 
> So if you have problems with other women, look more deeply.


:rofl: OMG Lyris I love you!

Joining the club of women with a "to die for" rack!

The only women who judge other women on their looks are women who are insecure about their looks.

FaithfulWife said something in another thread that bears repeating here.

"Another woman's beauty never diminishes my own."


----------



## GTdad

MSP said:


> Excellent post!


Totally a nine out of ten!


----------



## treyvion

Anon Pink said:


> :rofl: OMG Lyris I love you!
> 
> Joining the club of women with a "to die for" rack!
> 
> The only women who judge other women on their looks are women who are insecure about their looks.
> 
> FaithfulWife said something in another thread that bears repeating here.
> 
> "Another woman's beauty never diminishes my own."


If your part of the night club culture, "looks" is a large part of the game, so it's what many of them do.


----------



## Anon Pink

treyvion said:


> If your part of the night club culture, "looks" is a large part of the game, so it's what many of them do.


Going to a night club to dance twice a year doesn't make me part of the night club culture. Are you suggesting that any time a woman dresses herself up in fancy clothes she is playing some sort of game? If that's the case then why would a woman ever bother to look nice? 





committed4ever said:


> I'm self-selecting into that club. Especially considering 2 people have been sucking on them for the last 8 months.
> 
> The nipple clamps turned out to be a no-go, however.


Oh sorry they didn't work. Maybe while breast feeding clamps aren't the best idea? Unless.... I wonder if they would help with leaking? But you're probably past that stage of the squirting nipple when your baby nurses on the other?


----------



## treyvion

Anon Pink said:


> Going to a night club to dance twice a year doesn't make me part of the night club culture. Are you suggesting that any time a woman dresses herself up in fancy clothes she is playing some sort of game? If that's the case then why would a woman ever bother to look nice?


The one's who "live" in there, that game is part of what they do. For you, it's different.


Anon Pink said:


> Oh sorry they didn't work. Maybe while breast feeding clamps aren't the best idea? Unless.... I wonder if they would help with leaking? But you're probably past that stage of the squirting nipple when your baby nurses on the other?


Never knew anything about breast feeding clamps to stop lactation flow. Had several kids and assisted with the nursing process.


----------



## Jellybeans

Ok I just want to say that I walked into this thread w/o knowing anything about it and the first thing I read up at the top is this:



Lyris said:


> That makes no sense. Women have nothing to do with you being in a porn magazine.


I was like, what? 

:rofl:

I may be funnier to not even read the rest of the thread and just exit with that.


----------



## MSP

Lyris said:


> I took a photo of my boobs to send to my husband this morning that frankly should be hung in a museum.


In palaeontology? 

I guess now we all have to know: Do women rank each other on their boobs?


----------



## ScarletBegonias

MSP said:


> In palaeontology?
> 
> I guess now we all have to know: Do women rank each other on their boobs?


I don't know what other women do but I don't rank them.I just check them out if they're nice or if they're on display. It's better when they're nice and on display.

It's ok ladies,I do the same thing to men..just lower.


----------



## Anon Pink

MSP said:


> In palaeontology?



GASP!!! Oh no you dittint!



> I guess now we all have to know: Do women rank each other on their boobs?


If I was a man I'd be a boob man because I like looking at women's breasts. I think they are beautiful, whether enticingly displayed or demure and covered. The most beautiful breast of all is the breast that is nursing a baby. There is nothing more beautiful than that breast!


----------



## Jellybeans

I would be a total legs man. Or ass man. If I were a man. Lol.


----------



## Ikaika

Jellybeans said:


> I would be a total legs man. *Or ass man*. If I were a man. Lol.


----------



## MSP

Anon Pink said:


> The most beautiful breast of all is the breast that is nursing a baby. There is nothing more beautiful than that breast!


In the words of a comedian whose name I forget:

"Watching my son coming out of my wife's vagina was like watching my favourite pub burning down".


----------



## MSP

That was not at all my reaction, by the way. For me it was like a last piece of the puzzle falling into place. Like, a sense of completeness. 

But it made me laugh when I heard that guy in his standup set.


----------



## FrenchFry

I watch a lot of trashy TV--the kind with the individual interviews going on between the fighting--and to keep my poor long suffering husband from dying of boredom, I point out how much cleavage is on show during the interviews and try to mimic it myself. 

That ranking is:

*regular shirt, no adjustment needed
*giant push-up bra needed
*invisible bra as the entire rack is out
*why bother with a shirt at all/there is areola!!!


----------



## CharlieParker

Jellybeans said:


> I would be a total legs man. Or ass man. If I were a man. Lol.


A present for you.


----------



## treyvion

CharlieParker said:


> A present for you.


Right up there with the "p0ssy assasin" TV Shirts FaithfulWife proposed.


----------



## NextTimeAround

MSP said:


> In the words of a comedian whose name I forget:
> 
> "Watching my son coming out of my wife's vagina was like watching my favourite pub burning down".


I heard Robbie Williams say it on the Graham Norton show.

that kind of remark is probably getting passed around.


----------



## NextTimeAround

MSP said:


> In palaeontology?
> 
> I guess now we all have to know: Do women rank each other on their boobs?



boobs by themselves.... maybe. but not as part of a larger package. There are a lot of women out there with wonderful breasts who can't get their lives together. 

I always remind myself of those hot popular girls on campus who couldn't get the one guy that they wanted....... and it's a reminder that not one or maybe even two (or more) single attributes are going to get you everything that you want in life.


----------



## MSP

NextTimeAround said:


> I heard Robbie Williams say it on the Graham Norton show.
> 
> that kind of remark is probably getting passed around.


Oh, yeah, that's where I heard it! I got mixed up. I watch a lot of stand-up and my memory sucks (five concussions).


----------



## MSP

NextTimeAround said:


> There are a lot of women out there with wonderful breasts who can't get their lives together.


I zoned out after the first half of your sentence.


----------



## Unique Username

I rate women on their intelligence and biatchyness

not enough of one and too much of the other are grounds for not wanting to have anything to do with them

come to think of it, that is the same ranking I use for men

as for making friends with either gender - similarity in musical tastes and sense of humor are also rather important

oh and being genuine/real/who you are with no agenda - I like that too


----------



## heartsbeating

Music is key..!


----------



## committed4ever

Unique Username said:


> I rate women on their intelligence and biatchyness
> 
> 
> come to think of it, that is the same ranking I use for men


I find b!tchiness in men very unattractive. There's only one b!tch in the C4E household. And one alpha dog, and one peanut size drama queen. Makes for a very passionate household!


----------



## vellocet

CharlieParker said:


> A present for you.


That would belong to this guy


----------



## vellocet

always_alone said:


> TBH, I think women should just stop caring what men think of them or how they look. Just completely stop.


You first.


----------



## Created2Write

I couldn't care less what my ranking would be with anyone, male or female. People who apply ranking systems to others only do so to pacify their own insecurities, imo.


----------



## MSP

Created2Write said:


> I couldn't care less what my ranking would be with anyone, male or female. People who apply ranking systems to others only do so to pacify their own insecurities, imo.


Humans like to categorize and compare. It's how we make sense of our world. However, it's a very limited way to appreciate other humans.


----------



## Created2Write

MSP said:


> Humans like to categorize and compare. It's how we make sense of our world. However, it's a very limited way to appreciate other humans.


_Some_ humans like to categorize and compare, and I do not agree that it helps us make sense of anything. I agree that it limits our appreciation for other humans, which is why I stopped ranking people years ago. It served absolutely no purpose. It was merely a way for me to find flaws in people who intimidated me so I could feel better about myself, even if I never once spoke to the person. I see men do it here, and it's a blatant reflection of their insecurities as well.


----------



## Caribbean Man

heartsbeating said:


> Music is key..!


Gotcha .

Prince - Te Amo Corazon

I think I got that right?


----------



## always_alone

vellocet said:


> You first.


Done.

That was easy.


----------



## vellocet

always_alone said:


> Done.
> 
> That was easy.


Cool, I'll hold you to that in the event another male objectification of women post rears its ugly head.


----------



## Created2Write

....I don't think that's the same thing as caring about what men think of her personally, though....


----------



## vellocet

Created2Write said:


> ....I don't think that's the same thing as caring about what men think of her personally, though....


Sure it is. If you don't care what a man thinks, then you don't care what he is thinking when he is looking at a woman. Hence she shouldn't care what a man thinks of her when he looks at her.


----------



## NobodySpecial

vellocet said:


> Sure it is. If you don't care what a man thinks, then you don't care what he is thinking when he is looking at a woman. Hence she shouldn't care what a man thinks of her when he looks at her.


I think you need to go back and take college logic 101 again! I have no dog in this fight, but that was the weirdest "logic" I have ever seen.


----------



## Created2Write

vellocet said:


> Sure it is. If you don't care what a man thinks, then you don't care what he is thinking when he is looking at a woman. Hence she shouldn't care what a man thinks of her when he looks at her.


...No, it's still not the same. For myself, I couldn't care less if a man objectifies me with his thoughts. Those thoughts are all he's ever gonna get of me, so he can mentally objectify me all he wants. I don't care. However, I _do_ care that large groups of men practice the habit of objectifying large groups of women and try and justify it. 

In one example, no harm is done. In the other, great harm has the potential to be done. 

Hence, the difference. And I think that's what AA means as well. But of course, she can speak for herself.


----------



## vellocet

NobodySpecial said:


> I think you need to go back and take college logic 101 again! I have no dog in this fight, but that was the weirdest "logic" I have ever seen.


Then explain your "logic". My guess is about 80% of her posts is about men and what they think about women. Now she says she will start not caring what men think. How much more simple can it get for you?


----------



## Anonymous07

Created2Write said:


> I couldn't care less what my ranking would be with anyone, male or female. People who apply ranking systems to others only do so to pacify their own insecurities, imo.


:iagree:

I don't understand why some need to put others into little labeled boxes, as it's never that black and white and there really is no point. People are complex, so a ranking system would never work. 

I hate the whole "mommy wars" that some women do. I have mom friends who do things very similar to myself and also ones who choose to do things completely different. It doesn't bother me - not my life, not my kid.

When people bully/judge/etc. they do so because they have something missing in their own lives.


----------



## vellocet

Created2Write said:


> ...No, it's still not the same. For myself, I couldn't care less if a man objectifies me with his thoughts. Those thoughts are all he's ever gonna get of me, so he can mentally objectify me all he wants. I don't care. However, I _do_ care that large groups of men practice the habit of objectifying large groups of women and try and justify it.


Well that's good. Because she claims it running rampant on TAM, hence large groups of men here at TAM practice this habit of objectification. Everyone has asked her to show us that of which she speaks, yet she can't produce.

So you are correct and your point is understood. But not in AA's attempt of making a case that large groups of men here on TAM practice this objectification, much less proving that she was "dissected" personally by droves of men here.


----------



## Anonymous07

vellocet said:


> Then explain your "logic". My guess is about 80% of her posts is about men and what they think about women. Now she says she will start not caring what men think. How much more simple can it get for you?


For me...

I don't care what others think about me. I know I can handle it, as I have "been through" it all and know I am strong. 

However, I don't like seeing men say negative things about women(or vice versa) because I don't know how another woman might feel about it. She may be very hurt by the statement(s) and I would want to protect her.


----------



## always_alone

vellocet said:


> Then explain your "logic". My guess is about 80% of her posts is about men and what they think about women. Now she says she will start not caring what men think. How much more simple can it get for you?


I don't complain about what men think. I complain about how they talk and act and treat women.

Oh, and not all of them. Just the ones who insist on being objectifying a$$hats.


----------



## vellocet

always_alone said:


> I don't complain about what men think. I complain about how they talk and act and treat women.
> 
> Oh, and not all of them. Just the ones who insist on being objectifying a$$hats.


Fair enough. But you have been called out in the past that it runs rampant here at TAM and have been dissected personally by many men here, which never happened...at least by droves of men and that TAM is full of objectifiers


----------



## Created2Write

vellocet said:


> Then explain your "logic". My guess is about 80% of her posts is about men and what they think about women. Now she says she will start not caring what men think. How much more simple can it get for you?


Context, my friend. Context.


----------



## always_alone

vellocet said:


> Fair enough. But you have been called out in the past that it runs rampant here at TAM and have been dissected personally by many men here, which never happened...at least by droves of men and that TAM is full of objectifiers


You clearly don't understand my point, but I am not going to rehash it here. The thread was closed. Let it go.


----------



## vellocet

always_alone said:


> You clearly don't understand my point, but I am not going to rehash it here. The thread was closed. *Let it go*.


Will do. Lets just hope you do.


----------



## Created2Write

vellocet said:


> Well that's good. Because she claims it running rampant on TAM, hence large groups of men here at TAM practice this habit of objectification. Everyone has asked her to show us that of which she speaks, yet she can't produce.
> 
> So you are correct and your point is understood. But not in AA's attempt of making a case that large groups of men here on TAM practice this objectification, much less proving that she was "dissected" personally by droves of men here.


Vellocet, I have seen AA give example after example after example of how men objectify women, including but not limited to herself, on this website, and the responses back to her? "Oh please, that's not objectification...all men do that!" or "You should be flattered!" or even "Yeah, that's objectification...so?" 

Respectfully, I don't think you, and others, _want_ to see the proof. I will concede that there are times when she's been overly sensitive in my opinion and misunderstood someone's meaning. However, to say that her claims "haven't happened" is entirely untrue. And I think it's pretty low to bring it up now in this manner. You care way too much about what she thinks, imo.


----------



## Created2Write

vellocet said:


> Will do. Lets just hope you do.


Very rude. And uncalled for.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Anonymous07 said:


> For me...
> 
> I don't care what others think about me. I know I can handle it, as I have "been through" it all and know I am strong.
> 
> However, I don't like seeing men say negative things about women(or vice versa) because I don't know how another woman might feel about it. She may be very hurt by the statement(s) and I would want to protect her.


Good.

How about when women "_dissect_", _disrespect_ and say ugly things about _other_ women.

Does it affect you?

Would you want to protect her too?


----------



## always_alone

Thanks, Created! I wanted to like your post a bit more, but you only get one.

I've more or less resigned myself to never being understood on this point, and constantly called out for it. 

I guess it's important that no one challenge the status quo?


----------



## Anonymous07

Caribbean Man said:


> Good.
> 
> How about when women "_dissect_", _disrespect_ and say ugly things about _other_ women.
> 
> Does it affect you?
> 
> Would you want to protect her too?


It doesn't matter if a man or woman says the mean thing, it's just not okay. 

It doesn't necessarily "hurt" me, as I know who I am and I don't put a lot of thought into what others say about me. And I would definitely want to protect her. I have done so in the past from "mean girls" who seem to have nothing better to do than try to pick on other women.


----------



## always_alone

Anonymous07 said:


> I don't understand why some need to put others into little labeled boxes, as it's never that black and white and there really is no point. People are complex, so a ranking system would never work.


:iagree: 

Categories can be useful for descriptions, but start to be a problem when they're tiny little pigeon holes.

Ranking is downright obnoxious. Maybe fitting for the military, but can't see much purpose for it otherwise.


----------



## Created2Write

You're more than welcome, AA.  

There seems to be this assumption that if someone cares about how other people are treated, and perhaps even despises certain actions taken against others, that they have some kind of hidden agenda up their sleeve. I see it all of the time in objectification threads, rape threads, PUA threads...Why can't a woman care passionately about certain evils she's seen exemplified in her life and the lives of others without being labeled an extremist and ridiculed? How many times does she have to redefine her stance and re-explain herself before people stop with the accusations and actually effing _listen_?

At some point the people responding and reacting are responsible for their own perceptions. I think quite a few of the men on this forum are willfully painting your posts in the worst light possible because they don't want to see your point. I don't know if they identify with some of the things you disagree with, and therefore feel the need to discredit you to make themselves feel better or what. But it's gotten really old.


----------



## heartsbeating

Caribbean Man said:


> Gotcha .
> 
> Prince - Te Amo Corazon
> 
> I think I got that right?


You get a gold star.

Spot on, thanks!


----------



## vellocet

Created2Write said:


> Very rude. And uncalled for.


Wrong. If she expects me to let it go, which I will, I shouldn't expect to see the "those men" rants any longer.


----------



## vellocet

Created2Write said:


> Respectfully, I don't think you, and others, _want_ to see the proof. I will concede that there are times when she's been overly sensitive in my opinion and misunderstood someone's meaning. However, to say that her claims "haven't happened" is entirely untrue.


Last time I'm replying in the spirit of letting go, but need to respond to this.

I never said it didn't happen. In that thread I said I'm sure there are a couple of cases of what she was talking about, just not in the widespread man rant fashion here on TAM that she described.

And no, when asked for a link to the rampant cases, she didn't provide the proof. Not that it matters. If we are letting it go, then so be it. So I digress.


----------



## Unique Username




----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> I guess it's important that no one challenge the status quo?


Yes, that's what the men are doing... defending the status quo. Keeping women in their place. It was a bullet on last month's Man meeting. "Those women are getting uppity ya know, time to go beat them down on internet forums."

That... or maybe people legitimately disagree with how you characterize some things.


----------



## memyselfandi

Okay..I guess I need to get my mind out of the "gutter" here as I was thinking about something completely different such as "size" and such.

NM...:lol:


----------



## vellocet

treyvion said:


> Some of us men don't solely use looks as our selector.


Exactly. Looks are the initial attractor, but its not the most important factor.

I am attracted to all types of women. And honestly, the women who are stick thin model types don't do much for me. The personality does more for me than looks.


----------



## jld

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Yes, that's what the men are doing... defending the status quo. Keeping women in their place. It was a bullet on last month's Man meeting. "Those women are getting uppity ya know, time to go beat them down on internet forums."




No chance, lol. TAM women defend themselves very well!


----------



## always_alone

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> That... or maybe people legitimately disagree with how you characterize some things.


Legitimate disagreement is all fine and dandy, but if that's what it is, why not legitimately disagree with what I've actually said on this thread, instead of tossing out dismissive ad hominems and straw mis-characterizations from another thread?

If I'm so bloody offensive, just put me on ignore. 

Or is it so important that I be made to concede that (a)it's not really happening, (b) that I should be flattered when it does, and (c)objectifying others is great fun and not a problem?


----------



## always_alone

My experience is that women are usually quite supportive of each other, and not so inclined to establish pecking orders or social ranks. 

This thread is a pretty good example of that, IMHO. With only one or two exceptions, most examples of ranking were more about choice of who to hang out with than establishing a hierarchy.


----------



## Lon

*Re: Re: Female ranking system*



always_alone said:


> My experience is that women are usually quite supportive of each other, and not so inclined to establish pecking orders or social ranks.
> 
> This thread is a pretty good example of that, IMHO. With only one or two exceptions, most examples of ranking were more about choice of who to hang out with than establishing a hierarchy.


I think because of the format and rules of this website, we all tend to be in the exact same rank here, with not much room for differences in prestige apart from number of likes and and posts. 

In my experience both men and women tend to be supportive of each other within the same social rank. But in my experience, that supportiveness doesn't usually exist across rank.


----------



## always_alone

Lon said:


> In my experience both men and women tend to be supportive of each other within the same social rank. But in my experience, that supportiveness doesn't usually exist across rank.


You mean across social or economic classes? What do you mean by rank here?

I've also seen lots of support in my IRL experiences that cuts across cultural and economic groups. But maybe I need to think about that more. I've certainly seen people look down their noses at others, although this is not who I typically associate with.


----------



## Lon

always_alone said:


> *You mean across social or economic classes?* What do you mean by rank here?
> 
> I've also seen lots of support in my IRL experiences that cuts across cultural and economic groups. But maybe I need to think about that more. I've certainly seen people look down their noses at others, although this is not who I typically associate with.


Sure, rank in terms of however a group of people want to rank themselves within it. In this case, social class among TAM. basically the ability for people to be willing to attempt to relate to each other.


----------



## Fozzy

always_alone said:


> My experience is that women are usually quite supportive of each other, and not so inclined to establish pecking orders or social ranks.
> 
> This thread is a pretty good example of that, IMHO. With only one or two exceptions, most examples of ranking were more about choice of who to hang out with than establishing a hierarchy.


You should sit in on some of our local PTA meetings. There is very much a hierarchy in effect. Not on paper, and not official, but dang there are some bully women.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

Fozzy said:


> You should sit in on some of our local PTA meetings. There is very much a hierarchy in effect. Not on paper, and not official, but dang there are some bully women.


one of MANY reasons I never got into the PTA


----------



## NobodySpecial

ScarletBegonias said:


> one of MANY reasons I never got into the PTA


Boy did I hate the PTA. But that was not why. No rank and bickering here. Just issues that we could nothing about. No money. No power. Just a bunch of chicks with nothing that could be accomplished.


----------



## always_alone

Fozzy said:


> You should sit in on some of our local PTA meetings. There is very much a hierarchy in effect. Not on paper, and not official, but dang there are some bully women.


I'll just take your word for it. This is very much the sort of thing that I make great efforts to avoid. 

Which of course explains why I don't see very much of it.


----------



## NobodySpecial

always_alone said:


> Or is it so important that I be made to concede that (a)it's not really happening, (b) that I should be flattered when it does, and (c)objectifying others is great fun and not a problem?


Reminds me of Vanilla Ice, king of the one hit wonders.


----------



## treyvion

always_alone said:


> My experience is that women are usually quite supportive of each other, and not so inclined to establish pecking orders or social ranks.
> 
> This thread is a pretty good example of that, IMHO. With only one or two exceptions, most examples of ranking were more about choice of who to hang out with than establishing a hierarchy.


not true. They form cliques. Social levels. Sororities. But they will step in for a female they feel is bashed. My problem is they will defend nasty and abusive females, blame the male. Whereas if a male is bashed, other males will pile on in hopes he can benefit out of it.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jld

Lon said:


> I think because of the format and rules of this website, we all tend to be in the exact same rank here, with not much room for differences in prestige apart from number of likes and and posts.
> 
> In my experience both men and women tend to be supportive of each other within the same social rank. But in my experience, that supportiveness doesn't usually exist across rank.


Do you have any ideas for how we could improve this?

I am not sure if this is exactly what you are talking about, but it does seem like there are certain "correct" ideas we are all supposed to share here, and when we don't, we really hear about it.

I know I am afraid at times to speak up in support of a less than popular idea, or even to put a "like" on something that I believe is true, because it will upset a group of people. I don't think that is healthy, and conducive to growth.


----------



## Lon

jld said:


> Do you have any ideas for how we could improve this?
> 
> I am not sure if this is exactly what you are talking about, but it does seem like there are certain "correct" ideas we are all supposed to share here, and when we don't, we really hear about it.
> 
> I know I am afraid at times to speak up in support of a less than popular idea, or even to put a "like" on something that I believe is true, because it will upset a group of people. I don't think that is healthy, and conducive to growth.


Sandwich method maybe (compliment-critique-compliment)? This only goes so far towards closing ranks, but it will maybe get people communicating.

Maybe we don't try to improve supportiveness across ranks, maybe the answer is just being more inclusive and encouraging others to act more tolerably.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Fozzy said:


> You should sit in on some of our local PTA meetings. *There is very much a hierarchy in effect. Not on paper, and not official, but dang there are some bully women.*


Yes.

In group dynamics, people both male and female, tend to organize themselves along those tribal lines in order to further their personal agendas.

The tribe establishes it's own leadership and " pecking order."

Problems arise when those agendas aren't complementary or sometimes diametrically opposed to the goals of the larger community.

An yes, sometimes there are unnecessary antagonisms between the tribes.


----------



## jld

Lon said:


> Sandwich method maybe (compliment-critique-compliment)? This only goes so far towards closing ranks, but it will maybe get people communicating.
> 
> Maybe we don't try to improve supportiveness across ranks, *maybe the answer is just being more inclusive and encouraging others to act more tolerably*.


This sounds good. I think gently challenging people to reexamine their ideas is helpful. But gently is the key word, it seems.

I think it would be helpful to be able to integrate people who seem to have difficulties doing it on their own. 

We need to hear opposing viewpoints. How could we encourage these to be presented in less aggressive ways?


----------



## anotherguy

Fozzy said:


> I just read a link in a post Machiavelli put up that went into a quite extensively detailed list of the male socio-sexual hierarchy...


Just stuck my head in to see how things are around here... some things never change I see...


----------



## Lon

*Re: Re: Female ranking system*



jld said:


> This sounds good. I think gently challenging people to reexamine their ideas is helpful. But gently is the key word, it seems.
> 
> I think it would be helpful to be able to integrate people who seem to have difficulties doing it on their own.
> 
> We need to hear opposing viewpoints. How could we encourage these to be presented in less aggressive ways?


I think I would use the word respectfully instead of gently. But I think we're on the same page.


----------



## Unique Username

I am curious as to why this silly thread is now 22 pages long.

In the women's lounge, yet appears most of the responses and critiques are from the men.


for the record, I could care less what your gender.
I offer advice to both men and women.....each as their own unique situation warrants. 


Sometimes my responses are agreed with by others, sometimes not.


From the original post, no most women do not "RANK" other women by the size of their mammary glands nor their gluteus maximus, nor by their legs. And who would care about ANY of THAT on a forum like this?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

always_alone said:


> Legitimate disagreement is all fine and dandy, but if that's what it is, why not legitimately disagree with what I've actually said on this thread, instead of tossing out dismissive ad hominems and straw mis-characterizations from another thread?
> 
> If I'm so bloody offensive, just put me on ignore.
> 
> Or is it so important that I be made to concede that (a)it's not really happening, (b) that I should be flattered when it does, and (c)objectifying others is great fun and not a problem?


Disagreements with you receive your very own flavor of dismissiveness and mischaracterization. I get it by the truck load! I don't really prefer them, but its par for the course when people's deeply held notions are questioned. Sometimes, I'm not even sure what it is about something I've said that triggers some of the dismissive and mischaracterizing replies I get ("if you were a guy for a day" thread... I'm looking at you).

No concession is sought. Disagreeing with you does not demand your concession. You express your opinions on this forum, as do others. Do you see your own opinions as attempts to make others concede to your views? Or are we all here just bandying about ideas and some times the clash over deeply held ideas gets colorful?

It may just be my reading, but I feel like you present much of your opinion by playing the victim, with the grand schemes of men against you. It feels like you won't be happy until men think and act like women. Don't worry with objecting to this characterization of men and women, I know you don't like it and I'm not intending to argue it, but you get my point.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

On tribalism... we see plenty of it here. Hell, I could almost point out the cliques, leaders and followers... but that would start an argument. 

I think the biggest problem with the format is that it often appears that several people are ganging up on one person, and when that happens its a matter of time before mob mentality and defensiveness come into play. I've been on both ends, as many of the very opinionated and argumentative people on here have.


----------



## Ikaika

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> On tribalism... we see plenty of it here. Hell, I could almost point out the cliques, leaders and followers... but that would start an argument. .



You forgot total outsiders, the clueless ones. 

I simply have no idea what this thread is about at all


----------



## NextTimeAround

always_alone said:


> My experience is that women are usually quite supportive of each other, and not so inclined to establish pecking orders or social ranks.
> 
> This thread is a pretty good example of that, IMHO. With only one or two exceptions, *most examples of ranking were more about choice of who to hang out with than establishing a hierarchy.*



That's a hierarchy in itself.


----------



## NextTimeAround

ScarletBegonias said:


> one of MANY reasons I never got into the PTA


Certainly, not the Harper Valley PTA.


----------



## Fozzy

Unique Username said:


> I am curious as to why this silly thread is now 22 pages long.
> 
> In the women's lounge, yet appears most of the responses and critiques are from the men.
> 
> 
> for the record, I could care less what your gender.
> I offer advice to both men and women.....each as their own unique situation warrants.
> 
> 
> Sometimes my responses are agreed with by others, sometimes not.
> 
> 
> From the original post, no most women do not "RANK" other women by the size of their mammary glands nor their gluteus maximus, nor by their legs. And who would care about ANY of THAT on a forum like this?


Not sure where T & A came into this? Wasn't part of my question...


----------



## always_alone

NextTimeAround said:


> That's a hierarchy in itself.


I suppose. More compatible to less compatible, or more fun to less fun.

But is every value judgment we make really about social rank and pecking order?

That doesn't seem right to me. I value my friends greatly, but I don't think they're better than others, or more deserving of the good things in life. I just think they're awesome and enjoy their company.


----------



## Cosmos

Unique Username said:


> I am curious as to why this silly thread is now 22 pages long.
> 
> In the women's lounge, yet appears most of the responses and critiques are from the men.


Because when some of the angry guys come in here and start peeing on the chair legs, that is the signal for many of us to leave.


----------



## Unique Username

Fozzy said:


> Not sure where T & A came into this? Wasn't part of my question...


I thought there was a part in the thread somewhere where there was talk of this...and someone being stupid and supposedly sharing a link to published pics of them there body parts and then somebody else got banned.....

I got tired and bored of looking through pages to see where this all went down, and since somebody got banned it was probably deleted anyway...

While looking I saw a bunch of junk about sex rank so...

Meh

Feel free to disregard when I say something that doesn't make any sense 


I am curious as to what clique I am supposedly a member (if any) and I would certainly see myself as more of a leader
I don't follow....hmmm maybe my perceptions are all discombobulated though


----------



## Unique Username

Cosmos said:


> Because when some of the angry guys come in here and start peeing on the chair legs, that is the signal for many of us to leave.


But,

Do they clean up after themselves?

all that pee


----------



## Cosmos

Unique Username said:


> But,
> 
> Do they clean up after themselves?
> 
> all that pee


Not until they've rolled in it a few times, given themselves a jolly good shake down and given the rest of us a golden shower


----------



## Unique Username

I thought most golden showers were consensual and in the tub....

or at least in a room with a good drain


----------



## Unique Username

If I am in a clique

I will be the leader of:


----------



## FrenchFry

Let's not lie about it, everyone in this thread enjoys a good roll around in the pee once in awhile.

Pheromones.


----------



## heartsbeating

There are, I believe, currently 23 female CEOs in the Fortune 500.

Only 23.

Women don't need to be aggressive or good girl... but healthily assertive and supportive to others. I've been a stereotype, but those stereotypes are well overdue for being shattered. Ranking in a workplace is for order, process and (in theory) effectiveness. Groups tend to need a leader. Although we do also run the risk of being boxed-in with that dynamic also.

Outside of that structure, I can recognize qualities and interests that are compatible. Although even without that compatibility, I'll still be open to learning from you. There won't be ranking involved.


----------



## heartsbeating

FrenchFry said:


> Let's not lie about it, everyone in this thread enjoys a good roll around in the pee once in awhile.
> 
> Pheromones.


oh, and that too.


----------



## *LittleDeer*

I tend to rank both male and females along the same lines. 

I don't care if you have penis or a vagina, if you are aszhat, I'm probably not going to like you, and I won't want to associate with you. 

I have friends, male, female and from all social "classes" the ones I rank the highest treat other people with respect, are kind to people! have empathy and I find men and women who are more left leaning have a special place in my heart. <3. 

For example last year I deleted a male friend from FB because I found him to be sexist and he was always individualising social problems. The dude irked me enough to just cut him loose. Then recently I added an old school friend. The first thing she did was post a political meme insulting single mothers, is deleted her too. 

So yes, I rank people on their level of critical thought, I'm not much good with right wingers, and I value empathy.

I think in a way every one "ranks" people. However some people are shallow in their ranking system, both men and women. Nothing to do with gender.


----------



## NextTimeAround

always_alone said:


> I suppose. More compatible to less compatible, or more fun to less fun.
> 
> But is every value judgment we make really about social rank and pecking order?
> 
> That doesn't seem right to me. I value my friends greatly, but I don't think they're better than others, or more deserving of the good things in life. I just think they're awesome and enjoy their company.



And of those you choose not to be friends with, what's your opinion? Anyone attempt to befriend you and you rejected them, if yes, then what was your reason for doing so?

If you say, I don't have a lot of time...... then the next question would be, why is this person not worthy of your time. Whether you want to admit it or not, you make, consciously or subconsciously, assessments of someone's worthiness for your time.


----------



## always_alone

NextTimeAround said:


> Whether you want to admit it or not, you make, consciously or subconsciously, assessments of someone's worthiness for your time.


Errr, I already admitted this pretty explicitly. What I was questioning was whether this was any sign of social stratification or objective measure -- or indeed anything beyond a simple value judgment.

If we've decided that every value judgment we ever make is ranking others, well then, yes, women rank other women.

But that didn't even have to be a question did it? The way I understood OP was that it was more about social roles than personal predilection.


----------



## NextTimeAround

always_alone said:


> Errr, I already admitted this pretty explicitly. What I was questioning was whether this was any sign of social stratification or objective measure -- or indeed anything beyond a simple value judgment.
> 
> If we've decided that every value judgment we ever make is ranking others, well then, yes, women rank other women.
> 
> But that didn't even have to be a question did it? *The way I understood OP was that it was more about social roles than personal predilection.*


Even so, I don't think anyone can honestly say that their value system has not in even the tiniest of ways been influenced by the greater society and social roles. 

Stop and think about the times you actively let someone know that you were not interested in their friendship which may have been evidenced by your ignoring their efforts to contact you all the way to your ignoring them outright when you two were to face to face (because they couldn't "get the message otherwise".) 

What made you decide that this person could not fit into your portfolio of friends and good acquaintances.


----------



## Faithful Wife

always_alone said:


> But that didn't even have to be a question did it? The way I understood OP was that it was more about social roles than personal predilection.


I think the OP was just curious and really didn't know the answer...."do females do this alpha ranking crap?"...there is all the hoopla about men doing it (especially talked about around here, not so much in the rest of the world) but Fozzy wondered, do women have an equivalent system? He did not ever say he "believed" the ranking system of men, either. I think he's more bemused by it.


----------



## NextTimeAround

Faithful Wife said:


> I think the OP was just curious and really didn't know the answer...."do females do this alpha ranking crap?"...there is all the hoopla about men doing it (especially talked about around here, not so much in the rest of the world) but Fozzy wondered, do women have an equivalent system? He did not ever say he "believed" the ranking system of men, either. I think he's more bemused by it.


I remember in Tom Wolfe's novel "The Bonfire of the Vanities," the author hints at this hieararchy among men.

The Assistant DA of the Bronx, a main character, is feeling inferior because a) he is not making as much money as his classmates who went into corporate law and b) he even compares his physique (unfavorably) to one of witnesses who himself was a thug in and out of prison.

And then feels really strong and in charge when he "has his man" and is interrogating the murder suspect's (remember this is Sherman McCoy, the main character and erstwhile Wall Street's master of the universe) rich and pampered mistress.

I really couldn't believe that men would compare themselves to thugs for certain categories. But I do believe that Tom Wolfe's novels have a kernel of realism in them.


----------



## always_alone

NextTimeAround said:


> Stop and think about the times you actively let someone know that you were not interested in their friendship which may have been evidenced by your ignoring their efforts to contact you all the way to your ignoring them outright when you two were to face to face (because they couldn't "get the message otherwise".)


Don't know that I've ever done this. Maybe it's because most people don't want to be my friend? 

At any rate, I don't ignore people who contact me, let alone face to face. I suppose I have turned down invitations on occasion, but I wouldn't say it was because of social roles. I have lived in a lot of different places, in a variety of conditions, and with people of all types and propensities. 

I do remember totally cutting off one friend, but it was because she did something hopelessly mean to me, and when I called her on it basically told me that she was totally entitled to do it.


----------



## always_alone

Faithful Wife said:


> I think the OP was just curious and really didn't know the answer...."do females do this alpha ranking crap?"...there is all the hoopla about men doing it (especially talked about around here, not so much in the rest of the world) but Fozzy wondered, do women have an equivalent system? He did not ever say he "believed" the ranking system of men, either. I think he's more bemused by it.


Bemused. That sounds appropriate!

Yeah, I'm not judging or ranking anyone here. Just comparing the whole alpha, beta, gamma lingo to the type of values expressed by the women here.


----------



## Created2Write

always_alone said:


> I suppose. More compatible to less compatible, or more fun to less fun.
> 
> But is every value judgment we make really about social rank and pecking order?
> 
> That doesn't seem right to me. I value my friends greatly, but I don't think they're better than others, or more deserving of the good things in life. I just think they're awesome and enjoy their company.


I agree. I don't see my choice of friends as being a part of any hierarchy at all. I have a few friends I'm really close to, and some I'm not so close too, but that's not because one group is better than the other. I've known one group longer, been around then more, and they tend to have more availability than those I'm not as close to.


----------



## treyvion

Created2Write said:


> I agree. I don't see my choice of friends as being a part of any hierarchy at all. I have a few friends I'm really close to, and some I'm not so close too, but that's not because one group is better than the other. I've known one group longer, been around then more, and they tend to have more availability than those I'm not as close to.


I think if your friends did a hierarchy system you would know.


----------

