There is an idea, I don't know where it comes from, that many people (read: women) believe is true for how men "classify" the women in their lives. This belief is that there are several different classifications of women. For example, there are just friends, romantic interests, crushes, friends with "benefits", friends but you want it to be more, etc etc. Just so you know, this is false. There are only 3 categories of women (there is a 4th, but it is composed of blood relatives so it doesn't really apply to this discussion).
A: Women we want to sleep with.
B: Women we do not want to sleep with (but may or may not if the opportunity presents itself).
C: Women we want to sleep with, but won't.
the Forth category pretty much falls into category 2, except we wouldn't sleep with them even if we could because of the whole blood relative/incest thing. I guess you could take it a step back and have a subset category B1: Women we do not want to sleep with because they are relatives (may include women we would sleep with "if they were not relatives"). Now before you go all EEwwwwww on me, let me explain.
Men base initial categorization entirely on physical appearance. So 10 seconds after you meet a guy, you are either an A, B or C. You can move from one category to another based on a whole slew of criteria, but you fall into one category or the other almost immediately. So, if you meet a guy and two hours later you realize you are cousins, you may be making a move from A to B1 or from B to B1 and in some cases from A to C (here is where the EEwwwwww is applicable because he still wants to sleep with you even though you are related, but he won't. So I guess it's more of an eewww than an EEwwwwww).
No fault to the guy, he didn't know you were related. Also, you all have that one relative that you can acknowledge is hot. You know that if you weren't related, you would be all about the perv. Same thing with guys. If we have a hot cousin or other relative, we may not have fantasies or think of them in that way, but if we were not related then we would. So now that I have explained subcategory B1 you can take back your EEwwwwww, unless the eewww applies.
So there you have it, 3 categories. There are sub categories for each one, like an outline.
I. Categories of Women
A. Women we want to sleep with.
1. Women we know personally
a. Women we interact with on a regular basis (friends, co-workers, etc)
b. Women we once interacted with but have not in a while (old friends, acquaintences,
etc)
2. Women we do not know personally but have seen in person (may have had limited
interaction)
a. Women we see fairly often (waitress, store clerk, etc)
b. Women we saw once or twice (stewardess, hotel worker, etc)
3. Women we do not know and have never seen in person
a. Women that we know of (Jennifer Anniston, J-Lo, Petra Nemkova, etc.)
b. Women we know nothing about but have seen (Model in Calvin Klein add, girl in
commercial, etc.)
This is a rough example of the outline. I will give a better breakdown of the categories and subcategories in subsequent posts. So chew on this a while and let me know what you think. I will also give you some ways to move yourself from category to category and some examples of the women in each one (but better than the ones above). Where do you usually fall. . . .A, B or C?
Friday, November 03, 2006
3 categories of women. . . . yes, there is only 3
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
I did go all "EEwww...", when I thought long and hard about me categories, relatives didn't even come into it!
I must say, I don't have a category 3, those I don't know in person. To me, they have to be real...
Here I was, thinking there were just two categories:
1) Women you sleep with
2) Women you marry
Oh, well, now I have to reevaluate my entire existence! :)
How about this. The men I a) most want to sleep with generally have me in category c). Which sucks for us both, really.
Sorry to gross you out Chicky, but that is the way of it. Like I said, it is not really a Eewwww kinda thing because it is only in an objective sense. It totally affects you though, I have a 22 yr old step-niece that looks sooooo much like Heather Graham it isn't funny. I can never look at Heather Graham in the same way (objectively, she's hot and so is my step-niece but HG is now associated with my neice, so HG is off my list).If she didn't look like my neice though, she's be an A3a instead of a B. As it is it would just creep me out and make me all blech. . . . wait a minute, I just realized that implies that my neice is a B1. . . . Eeewwwwww.
Are you trying to tell me you wouldn't have a fling with some smokin hot famous dude if you met him in a club somewhere and he met your prescribed criteria. Or at least he would get the benefit of the doubt in some areas that would normally be a deal breaker. No one, this is just the perv remember. Not necessarily people you WOULD sleep with. . . . just those you'd like to.
No Heart, there are three categories. After you get married there are only two. 1.Woman (singular) you want to sleep with and 2.Women you would never even remotely think to engage in any kind of physical contact with because that'd be just weird and creepy and just wrong. Plus it'd be hard to get my freak on when my skin was trying to crawl off my bones. Regardless of how hot she might be. . . . . Eewwwwww!
(are you buying that?)
I think your categories fall more into the how to land a man instructions.
Jill baby, I am sorry to hear that. They must undoubtably have a good reason to have you in category C. Gay, blind, married, stupid. . . . those pop to mind. But as a married man, I have to say that the list used to be a lot different. It now has a lot of people that used to be or would be (if I was single) in A, moved into C. I'm not saying anymore. Ummm, only trouble to keep typing. . . .
From your grammar, I just assumed that even after you got married, you would continue to have the same categories, only:
A must now only be for your wife
and
C is now for all the women that previously would have fit into A.
So that is why I said C. Don't worry about me. I have plenty of happy in my life! There are just several married boys that I might have liked to have met pre-ring.
Only maybe the tense changes a little. C becomes "Women I would have wanted to sleep with were I not in love with and fully committed to the sole denizen of category A".
Yes Jill, you have hit it right on the button. There is currently one person in Category A, category has become women I would not sleep with (but if I was single I may or may not. . . .) and C remains the same, only everyone who used to live in A has been moved there with the a "single" disclaimer.
This was more of a general list that all guys use for classification. Who goes where is subjective. According to the statistics, roughly 50% of guys never change their list even after they get married, so obviously there is a margin of error on the list.
I have a breakdown of the scoring for individuals I will post later too. It is a 500 point scale that I personally used to rate women. The general breakdown was 300 points for physical attributes and 200 points for "intangibles", but they were scaled with time to give equal weight in the over-all point value after 6 months. That is why you can date and sleep with someone you would never consider keeping forever. I know, guys are pigs. But I have reformed, and in an effort to rehabilitate myself and make restitution, I am providing the information to the women of the world so they won't be fooled by us piggy guys.
Go figure – here I was under the illusion that men wanted to keep things simple. The Pc version of these categories is basically:
1) Women you want to take home
2) Women you want to take home & introduce to your mom.
Which category I am? Beats me, dunno & don’t care – I’m blissfully living in my ignorance ;)
First, your outline is internally inconsistent. “Women we want to sleep with, but won't.” is obviously a subcategory of “Women we want to sleep with.”
Second, the world would probably be a better place if you* admitted to yourself that the "won’t” category includes 99.999999% of women.
Third, you might consider adding an intoxication factor to the equation. That is, there are women you* want to sleep with while sober, and women you want to sleep with while you are intoxicated.
* By you I mean all pigs, not just you specifically.
Crashie, let me just say that the meeting Mom has little to do with the categories. There is a separate listing for the "meet the parents" list. This is more of an internal categorization of the women in the world in an "if I had the opportunity" kind of way.
Well ok, Julene. Here I am trying to give a public service announcement and I get met with a little venom. That's ok, I deserve it for past actions, but I am trying to be less pig-like. It is an ongoing process.
As I said to Crashie, this is a list of women as a gender, categorized into the individual niche in which they would fall. This is a "if I had the opportunity" list and not an "I might have a shot" list. As for the Want to but won't categorization, it is, in fact, internally consistent. The women the typically fall into this subcategory would be your best friends sister, your buddy's girlfriend, the current girlfriend's sister/roommate, etc. So if the opportunity presented itself, you would say NO. I know it is hard to believe, but some guys can and do say no.
There is no "alchohol" exemption. There is a little leeway, but that falls into category B. Like I said, I will go and clean up the categories and expand on them a little to make it more accurate.
so to quickly summarize:
A. Women we* want to sleep with, and would if the opportunity presented itself.
B. Women we* do not want to sleep with, but might depending on the situation and opportunity.
C. Women we* want to sleep with, but wouldn't regardless of the situation or opportunity.
* by we, I mean hetero sexual guys that have the desire to engage in the act of sexual intercourse.
Spiffster, my apologies for the venom. I hope you find someone to suck it out. ;)
And upon further reflection I now recognize that all women exist to satisy your carnal desires. It is truly a shame that more women don't know that (yet). Hopefully we can reach them through this blog.
Spiffster, my apologies for the venom. I hope you find someone to suck it out before it is too late. ;)
And upon further reflection I now recognize that all women exist to satisy your carnal desires. It is truly a shame that more women don't know that (yet). Hopefully we can reach them through this blog.
Nope. Famous people and celebs do nothing for me.
Post a Comment