Theory of the 9: Systemic risk undermines Courtship

My "Theory of the 9" (see previous posts) is very much like the financial crisis. What we refer to as a systemic risk in finance is what would result out of the failure of one major institution. If a bank came to collapse, it would certainly - like in a domino effect - drag down several other banks, leading to the potential collapse of the entire market. This is due to interlinkages of market participants: one bank has enormous deposits or collaterals with another institution, and thus, when one fails to reimburse, it seriously undermines the capital base of its counterparts.

Anyway, so the basic idea is that the failure of a single entity could potentially bring down the entire system. The same happens to my theory: when one assumption is invalidated, the others collapse under pressure.
Before I move on, though, lets quickly summarize what we know:
* The "Theory of the 9" basically says that a girl we would consider to be particularly desirable (thus, a 9 on a scale of 10) can't be dated the traditional way - she has to be courted. The first assumption is that if you are anything less than a 9 yourself, lets say a 7, then you can't expect her to go on a date with you if you haven't created an initial interest. She simply will see no reason in wasting her time, and she'll most certainly turn you down.
* A recent update of the theory added the assumption that a 9 never hits the market (i.e. she always is in a relationship.) Before she even breaks up, any guy who has sufficient insider information on the upcoming event will prepare to make a move on that girl, and grab her as soon as she gave her boy the "good bye". The second fundamental assumption of the Theory thus states that if you want to get a 9, you certainly have to court her pretty hardly, and in doing so obliterate the fact that she has a boyfriend (and hope that she eventually kisses the guy good-bye to date your very self).

Well, my very own experience in putting my theory at work has backshot - and this in a considerable fashion - thus leading me to question its validity. Of course, my experience is not statistically significant, but it raises some serious concerns.
The first blow came with mine realizing that, when I engaged in courtship, my very own feelings got involved, and thus undermined the machiavellity of the potential undertaking. Machiavellian because, as a friend would say, I went in there with an agenda, which compromises the very idea of friendship (in the initial stage) and love (at a later stage). Undermining, in turn, because feelings grew and lead to that very consideration of her interest taking precedence over mine. So I could not possibly push for her dating me while I am not sure whether this is the best possible alternative for her.
The second failure resulted of mine realizing that I could not possibly betray her trust. She came to entrust me with her secrets and desires, her aspirations and her dreams. How could I, then, possibly make a move on her while she trustes me as a friend? I can't. I'm not machiavellian enough - to be honest, I'm not machiavellian at all. Call me a sissy, but I simply won't do it. When I have her eyes resting on me, and all that trust that exists between the two of us being palpable, there is no escape then to give in.

The first failure - not being able to maintain the machiavellism of courtship - resulted in a trusting relationship (the second risk), and simply made the theory implode.