Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Dating Experiences  > Dating within' your "League"      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 MsMicki
Joined: 10/2/2006
Msg: 351
view profile
History
Dating within' your LeaguePage 15 of 19    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19)
I'll agree there is such a thing as Popular Opinion.
What I don't agree with is anyone having to think they aren't worthy of those deemed
"beautiful" by this popular opinion.
And I definately don't agree being beautiful puts you in a higher "league".
But, I am one that doesn't judge people by their looks, but on their actions.
And I'll agree there are many out of my league by what they have done with their lives......such as Eli Lilly, Henry Ford, James Dawson, Andrew Carnagie...men that have used their successes to enrich the lives of millions.


'League': The general range of one's desirability in reference to the masses of the opposite sex.

and where does this definition come from other than your own mind?
 Confident-Realist
Joined: 2/8/2004
Msg: 352
Dating within' your League
Posted: 6/27/2010 2:13:14 PM

What I don't agree with is anyone having to think they aren't worthy of those deemed "beautiful" by this popular opinion.

Not necessarily "worthy"/"not worthy" -- but being less or more desired, as far as the opposite sex in the environment is concerned. It's NOT about how good of a person one is -- it's about their desirability, which is different. For instance, there are many women who many guys will not find attractive/desirable, but at the same time look at them as great people.

And I definately don't agree being beautiful puts you in a higher "league".

It brings one greater desirability with the opposite sex, whether ya like it or not. That's what a 'higher' league refers to. More desirability by the opposite sex.

But, I am one that doesn't judge people by their looks, but on their actions.

Yeah, and that's fine... but again, we're not talking about any one individual's personal tastes -- just what the masses gravitate toward.

And I'll agree there are many out of my league by what they have done with their lives......such as Eli Lilly, Henry Ford, James Dawson, Andrew Carnagie...men that have used their successes to enrich the lives of millions.

I would say due to their status (fame), they would be, and as such, they were desired by many women who were more beautiful and had more to offer as options to them. But just being good (non-famous) people doesn't mean they're in a better league, because that's not what it's about really. To YOU it may, again, it's about the populous, not an individual. Why? Because a league refers to one's marketability among the masses.

'League': The general range of one's desirability in reference to the masses of the opposite sex.

where does this definition come from other than your own mind?

It stems from what people mean, when they say for instance, "She's out of your league". They're not saying they KNOW her and her tastes and you don't fit. They're not saying she's not your type really at all, either. Honestly, hear me out...

They're saying she's clearly hotter than a gal that you could feasibly get for all practical purposes... based on your general desire had by the female population. Hence, that means she is -clearly- more desirable to guys, than you are to girls, if she's out of your league.

If a gal is -clearly- more desirable to guys than I am to girls (that is what they're saying), she has more guy-options who are more desirable, as far as the masses are concerned. Hence, my chances are LOW in garnering her interest -- statistically speaking.

If someone says I am out of a girl's league, what they mean is that I can get a woman more desirable, as far as the male population sees things as desirable, collectively. Looks is a huge factor when it comes to desirability -- as far as the masses are concerned. How the masses deem you on a desirability scale strongly affects your chances at garnering a particular gal's interest. I say chance because, well, you don't know them (yet?).
 MsMicki
Joined: 10/2/2006
Msg: 353
view profile
History
Dating within' your League
Posted: 6/27/2010 6:31:57 PM
But..........how do you know if the object of your desire subscribes to these "league" notions?
They may be of the same mindset as myself......that looks have nothing to do with
desirablility in a mate.
Just because you think she is out of your "league".....maybe she thinks someone
who is "less attractive" but a great guy is exactly who she is looking for.
If you fall for this "league" theory......you might just miss out on a chance on
one of these "hotties" .....because of your own insecurities about being less attractive than her!!

Read these threads........the "Popular Opinion" is that confidence is attractive.



How the masses deem you on a desirability scale strongly affects your chances at garnering a particular gal's interest. I say chance because, well, you don't know them (yet?).

Are ya' kidding me? Is there some place I should be checking to see how a guy rates according to the "masses"?
Is this what the "Rate My Pic" thing is here?!
I'm really curious.......who are these "masses" that are deciding if we are desirable enough to date???
 Confident-Realist
Joined: 2/8/2004
Msg: 354
Dating within' your League
Posted: 6/27/2010 7:23:24 PM

how do you know if the object of your desire subscribes to these "league" notions?

The same way you could describe how an audience feels in terms of attraction (higher or lower) when putting forth a BBW with patchy skin, vs a slender, toned woman who's a model on Deal or No Deal. Now, that differentiation is pretty simple. It's not always that easy of course. It's an opinion on how an -audience- feels.

They may be of the same mindset as myself......that looks have nothing to do with desirablility in a mate

Most people's desirability has a lot to do with looks. Looks matter to almost everyone, including most people who say looks don't matter. Looks can even affect how you judge their persona -- we're all human. But the bottom line is the audience in general -- if her audience is wide open and she can get pretty much any guy, when you're a guy who on a great day garner the interest of a gal who's a bit above average -- your chances are low in garnering her interest.

maybe she thinks someone who is "less attractive" but a great guy is exactly who she is looking for.

True. Of course, leagues matter less after you get to know the person some -- then more personal meshability factors in. She could be a hottie who likes a guy who looks like a particular actor who, say isn't great looking, but man, that actor just has that way about him -- and that guy in the room looks and carries himself in the same way. And there's other personal taste reasons that can go outside the normalized audience range.

If you fall for this "league" theory......you might just miss out on a chance on one of these "hotties" .....because of your own insecurities about being less attractive than her!!

False. If you recognize that someone's smarter than you, better looking than you, made more out of their life than you -- that recognition does not = insecurities. Insecure is being AFRAID to say "Yeah, bob over there, he's smarter than me..." or "Sally, yeah, she's hotter than I am", and not be affected by it. Insecure people fool themselves into believing that looks don't matter because THAT will bring out their insecurities to the surface and allow it to affect their lives. But not everyone's insecure on the inside.

the "Popular Opinion" is that confidence is attractive

Yes, it is. So is looks. Big time. You could couple the "way about someone" that's seen on the surface with looks, too. Again, it's desirability. Leagues refers to basic see-from-afar qualities, because it refers to what people who don't know about you see you as. It's on the window-shopping level.

I'm really curious.......who are these "masses" that are deciding if we are desirable enough to date???

I think you're one of the folks in the very small minority who actually pushes themselves to such an extreme, to believe that looks don't factor into other people's desirabilities about another person. It does, by a wide wide wide majority.

It's simple logic, but you can go into deniability if you wish. How the opposite sex deems you as a desirable foundationally affects your chances at garnering a person's interest of the opposite sex. If one is seen as "ugly" by most people of the opposite sex, their chances of success in garnering romantic interest with someone who is "pretty" by folks of the opposite sex is dim. Now, obviously status & the way they carry themselves increases or decreases the desirability, too -- which could make it more or less dim. A rare guy with a ton of bank and famous? Looks matter a lot less. A middle-class guy to a middle-class gal? Pretty much dim.
 stella_ardente
Joined: 5/19/2010
Msg: 355
Dating within' your League
Posted: 6/27/2010 8:24:21 PM
I think part of what MsMicki is getting at can be illustrated by this imaginary scenario:

It's 11 am, downtown city sidewalk in front of the courthouse.
A man is standing there, roughly 35, looks to be 5'10' to 6', hair kempt, wearing a suit that fits his frame, a tie, dress shoes, and carrying a business case. He's talking to a height-weight proportionate woman, roughly 30, with long blond hair, a suit that fits her frame, and dress shoes.

MsMicki drives by, looks at him, and thinks "wow, he looks kinda like Dr Oz, hubba hubba woo-hoo."

I drive by, look at him, and think, "hey, he kinda looks like Dr Oz. Oh, wow, a parking spot is available up there."

A Leaguer drives by, gives him a 7.18956632 in looks, assumes he's an attorney and gives him an 8.36047619 in employment/income status, and gives him 8.89543187 in ability to chat up babes. The guy "is an 8," declares the Leaguer.

Thing is, the man's an underemployed recent college graduate on his way back from an interview for a job as a publishing assistant, and he was asking the woman if she knew where he could catch a bus headed south.

MsMicki and I got it right - for each of us an individual women with individual tastes - and the Leaguer got it wrong.
 Confident-Realist
Joined: 2/8/2004
Msg: 356
Dating within' your League
Posted: 6/27/2010 10:58:59 PM

A Leaguer drives by, gives him a 7.18956632 in looks, assumes he's an attorney and gives him an 8.36047619 in employment/income status, and gives him 8.89543187 in ability to chat up babes. The guy "is an 8," declares the Leaguer.

No - lol. But I know where you're coming from. You don't like the mindset of someone who recognizes that some people are better catches than others. Be fair, not bitter about that stuff. Someone like myself, would check out the chick and think "oh, she's really cute" if she caught my line of sight... or I wouldn't care. If I was scoping the scene driving around, I wouldn't think in numbers. It'd just be observation -- I wouldn't be scanning & computing anything, nor has anything I said remotely implied I would -- sorry to disappoint ya. And I wouldn't make a profound assessment on their status, sorry again.

for each of us an individual women with individual tastes - and the Leaguer got it wrong.

No, First, you got it wrong about Micki -- looks don't affect her desirability in guys (I don't buy that entirely, but that's what she claims). Second, see above, I wouldn't have made any sound conclusion on the status -- nor would I be making assessments out of thin air -- wtf? lol

According to your point of view, nobody's "right" or "wrong" in that sense because tastes are purely subjective. In your example the 'leaguer' -- some computer-generated entity I guess -- is making an assessment, where it could be right or wrong on it. Meanwhile you and Micki are not making any assessments on anything, so ya can't be right or wrong on a personal opinion, sorry. So comparing the two doesn't apply.

You're missing the key point of what I'm saying, and I say that sincerely, so I'll try to make it loud and clear:

*I* am not defining how desirable a gal is, by my personal tastes of desirability. I am not making a claim as to what extent you may personally find any particular guy to be.

I'm saying that different people are desirable on different levels to the opposite sex in general, as far as looks & status is concerned. And people who refuse to recognize that fact when the topic comes up are pretty insecure.

Please answer this fairly & directly (without avoiding it):
Are you saying that the results of everyone's attractiveness to the opposite sex is EVENLY distributed -- ie purely random by the opposite sex? For instance, if I polled 7,000 random guys, and showed them a video of a random gal -- would you say that in the end, roughly 1,000 would rate her Dog Ugly, 1,000 would rate her Ugly, 1,000 would rate her Not Attractive, 1,000 would rate her as So-So, 1,000 would rate her Attractive, 1,000 would rate her Great Looking, and 1,000 would rate her as a Full-On Hottie? And say I got many random gals on video... would you say for each gal I show to another random 7,000 guys, it's going to be even the whole way -- each time?

Call it leagues, call it whatever. If 'leagues' hurts someone's feelings, fine - lol. But the only way you could say that 'leagues' don't exist, is that those #s would have to be about 1,000 for each answer of a random person's looks & way about them, each and every time -- ie it'd have to be purely purely subjective....

... because I'm not talking about YOUR tastes or Micki's tastes in a particular guy. I'm talking about how the opposite sex TENDS to view them -- how hot of a commodity they are compared to the other fish in the sea.
 stella_ardente
Joined: 5/19/2010
Msg: 357
Dating within' your League
Posted: 6/28/2010 12:32:59 AM
I used hyperbole - the set of ridiculous numbers - to make the point about how some people (who I gave the silly name Leaguers - more hyperbole) feel there are commonly recognized and agreed upon firm standards for looks and/or status.
They seem to be people who believe that absolutes about strangers can be, in fact, numerically quantified merely by looking at them ("window shopping").

All below is IMO ...
As to "Looks":
As I have pointed out in these forums before, there is a profit-driven reason that there are and have been a plethora of successful publishing ventures that primarily or substantially market photos of "attractive women" to men ... Playboy, Penthouse, Hustler, Esquire, Maxim, etc, etc, etc. The editors of those publications have very little trouble sifting through pics of potential women to put in their publications, because the "standards" their readers' have are extraordinarily blatant. Fish. Barrel. The 7000 guys are nearly all going to be very predictable.
So,^^ that's^^ 50% of the hetero population, where predictable standards do indeed apply. Pick a man, any random man, and ask if Megan Fox is hot, and "no" will be the answer that comes as a surprise.

What do women get for "look at this hottie" publications? Playgirl, which has a very small female readership, and People/Us magazines and their features about "the sexiest men." Which leads us to that damn Brad Pitt thread here, where without any doubt, it is equally blatantly clear that women are all over the map in who they label as "hot." We could start threads on ANY one of People magazines' Sexiest Men Alive, and the same all over the map result would happen. The 7000 women might not be the even distribution, but it's going to be distributed, and not heavily weighted in one direction or the other.
So, ^^that's^^ the other 50% of the population, where predictable standards simply do not apply. Pick a woman, any random woman, and ask if so-and-so-supposed hot-guy is hot, and none of these answers will be all that surprising: "yes," "no," "he's okay, but not for me," "gross."

So, there is a substantial portion of the female population that recognizes that many men primarily or exclusively use comparative widely understood "looks standards" in assessing them. There ya go, "looks leagues."
What we wish these men would realize is that many of us are not doing the same in return. We are assessing, but we are not exclusively, primarily, or in some cases even sort-of, using comparative widely understood "looks standards" when we assess. We stopped doing that, if we ever did it all, when high school ended. That is the tendency: unpredictable and individual.
The endless forum posts by men who seem to think we think of these things the same way they do. ugh ...
 stella_ardente
Joined: 5/19/2010
Msg: 358
Dating within' your League
Posted: 6/28/2010 3:14:15 AM

You don't like the mindset of someone who recognizes that some people are better catches than others.

wtf? How did you get that out of the imaginary scenario I wrote?

Be fair, not bitter about that stuff.

What? Where or how was I bitter? Or unfair?
Since you brought bitter and unfair up ... I do think it's bitter and unfair to tell individuals that what they think and feel doesn't matter, but that (purported) "factual" "generalized" "ratings" of people based on "how hot of a commodity they are compared to the other fish in the sea" do matter.

If I was ... I wouldn't think ... I wouldn't be ... nor has anything I said remotely implied I would -- sorry to disappoint ya. And I wouldn't ... sorry again.

What made you think I was referring to you, specifically? I wasn't. Sorry to disappoint you.

You're missing the key point of what I'm saying, and I say that sincerely

I haven't missed your key point. You've made it quite a few times in this thread.

But the only way you could say that 'leagues' don't exist

I didn't say leagues don't exist.
Clearly, they exist for the people who believe they do, and those people's beliefs have an effect on the dating opportunities of people who don't believe that other people are commodities to be compared.
 MsMicki
Joined: 10/2/2006
Msg: 359
view profile
History
Dating within' your League
Posted: 6/28/2010 8:16:41 AM
I'm still trying to grasp how the real people of the dating world are deemed
a "hot commodity" by the "masses"???!!!
C-R repeatedly keeps saying someone's desirablity is based on what the "masses"
think.

As Jinx says.....I haven't given a hoot what others think since high school.
And I cannot fathom how that applies to anyone's life.

If I see this good looking man in a suit in front of the courthouse.........how do I know what other people think of him? And more importantly, why would I even care?
His "look" would never be the reason I would ask him out for a drink......
His demeanor, his ability to engage in conversation, his sense of humor, etc would be the defining factor on whether I would pursue him.....and it wouldn't matter if he was a high powered lawyer or a construction worker there to pay a fine.
Sure, his look my catch my eye.......but if he can't stimulate my mind I don't care how good looking/rich/famous he is.

I repeat, I am really curious as to how this "desirability according to the masses" applies to our everyday dating life??
If you see a profile you like.......do you show it to 10 of your friends to judge whether she is "desirable" enough?
If you meet a woman at the grocery store........do you watch and see how many other men notice her?
Please explain to me how a random pretty girl ends up in a higher "league".
 eastwood969
Joined: 12/21/2009
Msg: 360
Dating within' your League
Posted: 6/28/2010 9:29:06 AM
You got to remember this my friend, the girl cant help it she looks that way,and as the men cause car accidents trying to look, she has a problem with too many people wanting her and if god didnt give her some extreme talents to deal with this overload problem it becomes a reality that if a man wants to try he better be prepared to try hard and remember this woman will never be alone because no one will let her. So if you can deal with her family, her friends, and all her other admirers, then go for it. There is no such thing as a league, just deep thinkers.Sorry about the lack of coma's even after proof reading I still dont know where to put them.
 Confident-Realist
Joined: 2/8/2004
Msg: 361
Dating within' your League
Posted: 6/28/2010 9:43:25 AM

They seem to be people who believe that absolutes about strangers can be, in fact, numerically quantified merely by looking at them ("window shopping").

Honestly, that is false. There's nothing "firm" about it. Have I ever implied anything 'firm' or stringent? Like if I believe someone's probably a 7.43231 in looks, they're wanted more on the market than someone I believe is a 7.232321? Absolutely not -- in fact, the term league refers to something very broad-based. Like "seen as ugly" vs "seen as average" -- that sort of thing. What gives you the impression that they "seem to be people who believe" what you say? I wasn't even spouting out numeric qualifiers -- just an assessment to how they fare among the opposite sex in looks & status. No more "numeric" than using the term "hot", "ugly", "decent", "really ugly", "really hot", etc.

So,^^ that's^^ 50% of the hetero population, where predictable standards do indeed apply.

You could get gay guys -- or (non bitter, jealous of other women) women -- and do the same thing. Statistically speaking, they're not going to find BBWs as looking more desirable than a gal who looks like Megan Fox.

What we wish these men would realize is that many of us are not doing the same in return

Men AND women rank looks #1, status #2 when it comes to having their interest garnered to learn more about them. That is what is what "league" makes reference to -- how desirable they are as a dating prospect. It's basic nature... and whether magazine publications add fuel to that fire and make a handful of even decent looking women upset, that's a separate issue and actually moot. Pointing that out only reveals a bias about it -- but we're just talking about the existence of various people (men AND women) being SIGNIFICANTLY more a of a dating commodity than others as far as the masses are concerned -- that's ALL league means. No decimal points required. No exactness of stringency -- no robotics.

That is the tendency: unpredictable and individual.

There is predictiveness. Male models or female models -- there is predictability to a certain degree. Beauty is not 100% subjective...

And WHY did you avoid my question? You didn't answer it directly, you went on something else! Have some courage -- it's not a trick question or unfair question!

It's not about "ratings" per se. It's not a bitter or happy individual, it's about the masses.

Do you believe that every person out there is desired from a window-shopping perspective, the same way statistically? Yes or no?

That they all categories however you want to classify them -- whether it be "good looking" or "not good looking", or numbers 1-10, or from "Really Ugly" to "Really Hot" and a handful in between. Someone who is observed in person or on video... are you saying that there would be NO consistency in any one person being more "hot" or more "ugly"? An overweight, unfashionable guy and a guy who looks like Brad Pitt would get the SAME ratings in the end over 7,000 girls observing them?

Whether it's "the magazines fault" or not, is moot. Again, let's have even homo & hetero guys AND girls do that assessment.

Basically you're saying, no, there won't be any consistency? Maybe with hetero guys only because they're brainwashed by the media (but no girls are by magazines)?
 abelian
Joined: 1/12/2008
Msg: 362
Dating within' your League
Posted: 6/28/2010 9:55:43 AM

I completely disagree with that. One category does not qualify as a "league" - they are two completely different aspects of the bigger picture.

If you had read the rest of the same post containing the paragraph with which you say you disagree, you could have saved yourself the effort of posting a reply that basically repeats what I wrote in the rest of the post.


Really!!! I work with the bell curve everyday and according to my training 30% of the population are within the average range, which leaves 35% below and above average...

Your training is wrong. For a normal distribution (i.e., bell curve), a little over 2/3 of the distribution is within one standard deviation, i.e. only approximately 32% of the population is NOT normal.
 Confident-Realist
Joined: 2/8/2004
Msg: 363
Dating within' your League
Posted: 6/28/2010 1:02:34 PM

I'm still trying to grasp how the real people of the dating world are deemed a "hot commodity" by the "masses"???!!! C-R repeatedly keeps saying someone's desirablity is based on what the "masses" think

I am not telling people how things "should be" -- there is a miscommunication based on assumptions about what I must think or something. What I am saying is that by the common usage of the term 'league', which I am going by, what they are referring to is how well the person fares as far as the masses are concerned.

Here, let me try and make this more clear. Let's say I go out on a quick mini-date with a gal I met from POF. A friend of mine asks me afterwards, "So, what's she like?" I respond with, "Oh, dude, she is a hottie". I'm not saying that just I find her to be hot -- I am defining her AS hot. Now, OBVIOUSLY not everyone is going to find her to be "hot" -- but I am saying that a mass majority of guys would find her to be hot -- that she gets looks, stares, etc. -- that type. I am saying that I believe MANY guys would find her to be hot -- so many, it's statistically accurate to call her that.

It's not about my personal tastes. Think of someone who does a "makeover". They'd have to know what is better looking in the eyes of the masses. We all really do know that it's not random. Just because there's subjectivity involved in something, does not mean it's purely subjective. Purely subjective means that the responses would be completely random, completely unpredictable with everyone.

It is predictable on a makeover show that the person looks BETTER to a vast majority watching. Maybe only a little, maybe a lot. One CAN tell what an audience finds someone more appealing in looks... sometimes it's up in the air. Sometimes it's not. When it's clear that it's obvious someone is better looking "after" than "before" -- that's what "leagues" refer to. No decimal points -- but a substantial (league) difference.

Another example about consistency in what flows well with peopl.... Say I go out to a nice, low-key bar and you notice me slapping girls' asses and calling them 'sweet t!ts', and spouting out "Why did the chicken cross the road?" jokes, right? It's not JUST YOU who would find that a turn-off -- and you know that. It IS predictable that many women in the place would find it a turn off. YES, there -might- be a gal there who for some odd reason, finds that appealing. But it would take many trips to that bar (assuming I wouldn't be thrown out) until that happened -- ie Low Chance.

So why is there not a problem with that? Because people are sensitive about looks & status. I'm not talking about decimal points or gray areas. I'm talking about people being substantially desired by the opposite sex more or less than another person -- that's all I say that exists. That it's NOT random and evenly dispersed as far as ugly ones go, average Janes & Joes go, and hotties go. There are gray areas.

You should go OFF on a peer the next time you hear them say "... yeah, and he just looked like an average Joe, but...". You have to stop them dead in their tracks and tell them that THEY don't know that -- and that's JUST their personal tastes. Just as many people would find that guy INCREDIBLY GORGEOUS HOT as many as would find him an average Joe... and just as many would find him DEAD-DOG UGLY, too. If you think believing that nonsense is silly like I do -- congrats:

Some people are more desirable to the opposite sex than others, statistically speaking (which leagues refer to when there's a large gap).
 mr.evil
Joined: 11/14/2009
Msg: 364
Dating within' your League
Posted: 6/28/2010 1:24:53 PM
At last, something I can speak to, thank you:

"is that everyone's taste in others of the opposite sex would have to be random"

Has been exactly my point! Most of the folks I've known can point to their car, or their favorite car and say "that's the best car there is!" Now since what is best is subjective, so will be their choices. What's the best is played so often it isn't funny, electronics Sony or Panasonic, cellphones Apple, motorola or Rimm and on and on. Then what is best for one, may not be the best for the other, options, apps and services aside.


"there would be no such thing as models of today, as there would be no such thing as a "hottie" or one who is "ugly" by popular opinion."

Ahhhh, the baa, baa, baaa argument, yes I will admit to the existance of the "sheeple"! Funny someone in a variety of places goes out and designs something, some idiot star or famous person picks it up and puts it on, it's a fashion or fad. Then all the wanna be sheeple, run out and get it. Why? So they look cool or hip or together like they know something! Hahahahaha!!!!

Would you believe NOW all the names thrown around on this thread, are the sh1t! 50 years ago, if we morphed into the future, would Janis Joplin, Twiggy, and heroin chic, be as popular, would those models be the sh1t, to date?

Like all things Madison Avenue and 7th Avenue, they SELL the concept to the various couch potatoes, American Idol, Lost, and similar shows TELL people what to think. Poor sheeple, they have no mind of their own! hahaha! This IS high school thinking, someone tells YOU what to think, implants these "leagues" in their mind.

Sorry give me a person with their own mind, not one bought and paid for on Madison Avenue. Hahahaha!
 HawkingJr
Joined: 4/16/2007
Msg: 365
view profile
History
Dating within' your League
Posted: 6/28/2010 2:15:46 PM
I have returned. My month-long film project is over (well, it's moved on to the editing stage, allowing me to procrastinate in front of a computer instead of on set).

I don't think there's any point in getting defensive about the "leagues" concept. I doubt that anyone is accusing "non-believers" of not being truthful about their convictions or anything like that. As I said in what I believe was my last post in this thread, if you don't believe in leagues, more power to you -- accept and reject dates for whatever personal reasons you have, and I believe you when you say it has nothing to do with the other person not being in or being in your league.

The league concept is, again, mostly just to help guys keep from wasting their lives away asking out women with whom they have little chance of succeeding with. They may well be wrong in many cases of choosing not to pursue a woman they believe to be out of their league, but then you have to ask yourself, why do you care? It's his loss, and you wouldn't want to date a guy who believed in leagues anyway, as you're obviously incompatible! I'm not really sure why any woman would be offended because *I* won't ask her out because *I* believe she's above my league. I can promise you this: if a woman I believe to be above my league asks ME out, I will VERY strongly consider it! (Though I will be highly suspicious of it.) I mean, that solves the whole leagues problem right there: women ask men out, and there goes the end of any concern about leagues.

As far as a guy dating below his league, I doubt that happens much unless desperation has set in. Most guys date women they find attractive -- not much else matters. Hence a world famous, rich movie star (Matt Damon) dating a bartender (Damon's current wife of 5 years) really isn't dating below his league, if he finds her attractive. What I'm saying is, I can't really see most guys turning up his nose at a woman he finds attractive and saying, "I wouldn't date her, because she's below my league." Something about her might turn him off after the initial attraction ("she's a PORN STAR?!?! ICK!"), but theoretically that's still an attraction vs. non-attraction issue, not really a league issue. Leagues are pretty much just one way: above you. The only kinds of guys who ever sit around worrying about dating someone beneath him are aristocrats. So I really don't see a purpose in women sitting around worrying what league they're in -- leagues aren't really an issue from a woman's perspective. What about a world famous, rich FEMALE movie star (Julia Roberts) dating a cameraman (Roberts' husband of 8 years)? Much more inexplicable -- but it doesn't really matter if Danny was a believer in leagues or not -- leagues is really about not pursuing a woman who hasn't shown any interest in you yet. If I were in his place, and Julia Roberts showed interest in me (and I actually thought she was attractive, which I personally don't!), I'd say the hell with leagues, and go right after that! (Why Julia had interest in him is Julia's own business and not really relevant here.)

Again, the only purpose in acknowledging leagues is to prevent you from wasting time on women you likely have no shot at. And again, although most guys don't sit around analyzing the concept, it's rather complicated if you attempt to. As I said before, I'm not in Megan Fox's league for reasons beyond simply the fact that she is acknowledged to be one of the most attractive young women around. If I met another woman today who looked exactly like her, I wouldn't automatically assume her to be out of my league. If she was some white trash chick with no education, barely any money, a heroin habit and three kids, then, you know, I just might have a shot with her if she isn't racist, though she'd obviously be quite popular among men, since she looks like Megan Fox, and I'd probably have hellacious competition to deal with.

Venn: During my first round on Hot Or Not, I was surprised to discover I was in the upper tier -- like 7 point something for months. But one difference between HON and POF on ratings is that my HON profile doesn't have a height listing.
 mr.evil
Joined: 11/14/2009
Msg: 366
Dating within' your League
Posted: 6/28/2010 3:15:31 PM
Well now isn't that interesting!

First we have to acknowledge the fact of sports "you miss 100% of the shots you NEVER take"!

Next as to Mr. Damon's wife, a common thing, when your at the top of the heap, you get to pick and choose pretty much what you want. Not always a good thing, since you never know if it was YOU they chose, or your fame or wallet.

As for Julia baby, well, again IRL is far different than online. Hanging around together for 4 or 5 months, long down times, between shots, she HAS to talk with someone, why not him? So his personality floats her boat, maybe he's funny, edgy and a little attractive to HER. Nature takes its course, end of story.

Next as for you Hawking, I told you on here or another thread, you were NOT in the bottom 1%. I know, I know you'll say "why no answers?" I say the same as before, maybe you would do better IRL, than online. But your score far better illustrates what I believed than what you believed in your thought process. Further it supports my contention all the more, selling seems to be at fault, more than actual people.

A combination of the "Marlboro Man and Victoria Secret women, shown to be TALL, sexy, thin, and gorgeous will win a person's visual soul, over common sense, from the sheeple, more often than not. Later when they discover a vapid, brainless, self indulged person, who worries over the 2 pounds she just put on her 108 pound frame. Or the guy who discovers he just turned 36, has 25 more gray hairs, or just "thinks" his hairline might be receding will sit around and lament, despite all the attention they HAD received. Hahahahahaha!!!

Sorry guys/gals, inside beats outside everyday and twice on sunday, and always will.

Hahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 sarniafairyboy
Joined: 6/19/2010
Msg: 367
Dating within' your League
Posted: 6/28/2010 4:41:55 PM

A combination of the "Marlboro Man and Victoria Secret women, shown to be TALL, sexy, thin, and gorgeous will win a person's visual soul, over common sense, from the sheeple, more often than not. Later when they discover a vapid, brainless, self indulged person, who worries over the 2 pounds she just put on her 108 pound frame. Or the guy who discovers he just turned 36, has 25 more gray hairs, or just "thinks" his hairline might be receding will sit around and lament, despite all the attention they HAD received. Hahahahahaha!!!

Sorry guys/gals, inside beats outside everyday and twice on sunday, and always will.


but now YOU are espousing a stereotype

you assume that 100% of the time, any man or woman felt to be attractive by the majority MUST be 'shallow' and have an offensive personality, and/or be dumb as a bag of rocks.

how do you arrive at this conclusion? IT really does sounds like "sour grapes"..that because you KNOW you are far below someone's 'level' in physical attractiveness, you assume that they are stupid, have a nasty personality ,, etc. etc. to make you feel better about yourself. the fact of having no pic of yourself posted speaks volumes.

I kind of get C-R's point. To take an example, there are very few men who would HONESTLY not find Megan Fox physically attractive. there MIGHT be a few..

there would be many more who realize that she is 'out of their league' and they would NEVER have a shot with her, so they will make all kinds of nasty comments "she's not that attractive", "she's stupid", she has a sh1tty personality, "she's a ho" , etc. etc.

Now I have never met Megan Fox nor had a conversation with her.. from some things she has apparently said in the media she does seem manipulative and comes across as somewhat of an air-head but that could be all part of the game-plan to increase her popularity, who knows if it represents the 'real' her.? Maybe she's actually quite bright; she makes more than most of us do, for appearing in a movie or 2 a year so from that point of view, how 'dumb' is she?

I would probably never approach her, considering her out of my league?

but if she approached me, would I go on a date with her? I think so! I might find her to be charming & witty, or I might find the opposite. who knows. ?


Sorry guys/gals, inside beats outside everyday and twice on sunday, and always will.

again, the ASSUMPTION that 'external' & 'internal' beauty absolutely cannot co-exist, and almost that the homelier one is, the better personality one has ( I would dispute that conclusion!)

I've met many people who I would consider to be 'ugly' both on the inside and the outside, and the reverse; the 2 considerations are not really related.

I think the argument comes from people who find the concept 'offensive' because they know they have not been blessed with model-stunning looks and find it "unfair" that others may heave been -and what's more, that they might also be samrt & have wonderful personalities!

"that's so unfair" "why do some get it all, and I got none of that? "
 Confident-Realist
Joined: 2/8/2004
Msg: 368
Dating within' your League
Posted: 6/28/2010 4:54:49 PM

Has been exactly my point!

Okay, at least you directly answered the question. :) You're saying everyone's tastes in the opposite sex, no matter who is brought in front of the people -- are all evenly dispursed & random on that one individual. Everything that has been done about looks goes directly against that, so I think that should make you at least DOUBT that it's all random, right?

Then what is best for one, may not be the best for the other, options, apps and services aside.

Of course, but that's not what I'm talking about. I may not like the iPad or think it's worth buying. You may not like the iPad and think the same way. But I can't lie to myself and say that the iPad is not a marketable product to the masses. I'm referring and only referring to the masses, as far as a particular person's dating marketability goes.

It's not about whether or not your average Joe should chase a gal who's highly highly desired by the opposite sex. It's about IF she IS a highly highly desirable girl by the opposite sex. You are saying there's NO SUCH THING as that type of girl. Because there will be JUST as many men repulsed and JUST as many men in love with ANY GIRL in say, a bar you're in.

Are you saying that every gal you thought was 'hot' that you've dated before -- can't be considered 'hot'? That she would be just as likely to be considered dead-dog-i-want-to-puke ugly as so-gorgeous-i'd-pay-money-to-drink-her-bath-water by every guy in the bar where you'd bring her out to? That's complete BS -- it's not random.

Every psychological and marketing study done goes against that.

This is what you'd have to agree with: Let's say we get some ALLEGEDLY hot girls... well, hot as far as those crazy people who believes people have similarities in desirable/non-desirable taste on a fundamental level ('leaguers'). And have them walk into a bar where there's 1,000 dudes sitting around and they're told to observe them.

Let's say there's 10 general categories that best suits how they feel, as far as desirability is concerned...

WIth *EACH* girl, no matter who it is, the guys are always going to be roughly evenly-dispersed on their categorical opinion in basic looks, all into equal fractions. Just as many guys will be repulsed and neautious, as the number of guys sporting wood. The same amount for each will think she's just an average Jane. Just as many will think she's a hottie. Just as many will think she's not-attractive.

I'm not saying every guy would be sporting wood if I led in a woman who I thought the masses thought were hot. I'm not even saying I can accurately tell the difference as to whether a wide audience would feel one girl is hotter than the other, if they both seem *objectively* pretty hot.

But I can use some basic common sense to know that if I got to choose 2 gals -- one that I thought people would find ugly, and one that I thought people would find hot, and have them walk into a room of 1,000 guys -- which one the guys would GENERALLY find attractive and which one the guys would GENERALLY find ugly.

That's all 'league' refers to. The masses. You're saying they're random because there's subjectivity involved and some people have really odd-ball tastes. Doesn't matter. I'm not trying to guess what *A* guy in that crowd thinks -- I'm assessing how high or low her desirability is amongst a whole crowd of guys. To you, any woman would get the same reaction as the next, walking into a room full of guys.
 stella_ardente
Joined: 5/19/2010
Msg: 369
Dating within' your League
Posted: 6/28/2010 8:26:07 PM
Talk about assumptions about what someone thinks ...

C-R, again, unless I'm directly addressing you as I am in this sentence right here, I am not referring to you, personally. Please stop assuming I am. Also, I already did answer your "question" about the 7000 in a previous post, despite the fact that I'm under no obligation to address you at all. But here's vv my "answer" again.

C-R, you seem be assuming I'm motivated to post by "bitterness" or a perceived "unfairness" about how men (and women?) perceive women. I'm not. Not at all. I can honestly say that the "looks" and "leagues" stuff hasn't concerned me since high school. In truth, I'm amused by how many men are, for the most part, as C-R tells us, so easily umm ... charmed when it comes to appearance. Amused because I understand how superficial and malleable it actually is, and also how fleeting, as MrEvil points out. http://seehere.blogspot.com/2006/08/celebrities-without-makeup.html

My motivation in posting is to try to explain that nearly all women are not so easily charmed or attracted by appearance alone. That is the unvarnished truth, despite all the redundant forum posts from men who admit they aren't particularly successful with women droning on and on about how, essentially, women as a group think the way they do (reject based on pics, for example), or how we're some monolithic cabal of "shallow" b!tches, or a pack of "shallow" twits, etc. Good for them stewing in their own toxic juices, but they pollute these public forums.

Furthermore, I made zero mention, nor did I even hint at media manipulation, or "brainwashing," or "fault" the content or publishers of magazines or other media --- C-R, you made assumptions that are way off base.

I made it clear I was talking about the publications' ability to turn a profit --- to appeal to a large readership -- you know, successful business models.
Premise: If there is a way to make a buck in this world, enterprising people will discover it, exploit it, and succeed at it. To some extent, it is a way to understand some truths about what people (or sheeple!) think and desire.

Again, all of this below is IMO~
A business that in whole or part relies on "selling" still photographs of not famous or not well known (no knowledge of persona) "attractive women" to men can make money hand over fist even though they have lots of competitors in the industry.
Why? Because men's "standards of female attractiveness" are predictable enough to turn a profit. "In our repeated market testing of 7000 men at a time, xx% (some "mass majority" number) consistently say models A, B and C are 'hot' or 'very hot'."
As you say, C-R, if the girl you met is "hot," she IS "hot" for the "mass majority of guys." Kind of a no-brainer.

Now in contrast, it would appear that "selling" still photographs of not famous or not well known (no knowledge of persona) "attractive men" to women is not a successful business enterprise.
If it were, many such businesses would exist and flourish.
Why is this? Because women's "standards of male attractiveness" are NOT predictable enough to turn a profit. "In our repeated market testing of 7000 women at a time, we could not find a statistically significant consistency for 'hot' or 'very hot' for models A, B, and C with images alone. In fact, a substantial number of women rated those same men as 'very unattractive,' 'unattractive,' or 'average' in each group."

Women are visual, no doubt, but visual alone is simply not enough when it comes to identifying potential dating interest. Nor is visual + some assumed-without-actual-knowledge educational/occupational/economic status alone enough.
Instead, what mass media "sells" to women are men who have "personas" such as actors and singers. A "package of looks + expression of (a) personality" can successfully be sold to women.
"Looks" alone are a whole lotta "meh." Two slices of tasty looking bread with nothing inside does not make a sandwich we want to devour.
Yes, there are male fashion models. Outside those who are interested in fashion as an industry, the vast majority of women don't know their names or anything about them other than "is he that Ralph Lauren guy?" (Contrast that to the many men and women who know the names and something about Victoria's Secret models, and the models who are in SI's swimsuit issue.)

Using your "meet" scenario, C-R, if I "define" the guy I met as "hot," I KNOW FOR A FACT THAT I CANNOT SAY that he is "hot" for the "mass majority of gals." That would be absurd. There IS NO VAST MAJORITY opinion when it comes to which particular guy "women en masse" will find "attractive to date." Such a thing exists for "not attractive," but it does not exist for "attractive."

Of course I'm NOT denying:
1) that there are not particular physical traits that appeal to most or many women (ex: 90-something percent of women desire their man to be their height or taller; a grossly obese build is generally speaking not a draw for men or women; symmetry and certain facial structures have intrinsic appeal to men and women; a healthy appearance is appealing to men and women)

2) that if my date looked like Brad Pitt there wouldn't be some number more women thinking my date was "good looking" than if he looked like Tom Hanks. But being able to confidently predict there'd always be a either a large or a consistent statistical difference in picking Brad for "attractiveness for dating" over Tom, or vice versa, among several random groups of women? No way. No how.

According to the original post: This thread is about (heterosexual) dating decisions, not about random assessments of hotness that don't tie directly into individual dating decisions.
Focusing on that:
1) Neither I, nor anyone else who doesn't know her individual taste, could predict whether any given woman would get her motor revved more by the Brad look-alike, the Tom look-alike, or by neither. We are UNABLE TO PREDICT HER RATING/RANKING of the men. We'd have to ask her to know. So, again, one batch of 7000 women's responses to the question "do you think he's attractive to date?" WON'T match another batch of 7000 women's responses, and so on, without significant statistical deviations between batches. (Before I get jumped on, as I already said, this is IMO, not science or math).

2) IT IS A RARE WOMAN WHO WILL DATE BASED ON VISUAL APPEAL ALONE. Even more true for 2nd+ dates.

3) Women (as in adult females, not teens) do not routinely, if ever, engage in this "looks market comparison" before deciding to date someone. It would never even occur to me to do.

4) What DOES matter to the 50% of the hetero equation that is female: ATTRACTION FOR DATING is the entire package of looks (her individual standard) + expressed personality + whatever else she deems important (which we can only guess at unless we know her).

5) If a man is looking for his complementary dating half to agree that "widely accepted good looks" is THE basis for attraction, then he should be thrilled to date those 1/8"-deep women who think like him, and then remember he promised to STFU when he wants to complain because it ended up going badly. Either that, or date a man who thinks like him.

6) Whether men like it or not, or agree with it or not, most women do not approach their dating decisions the way many men claim they themselves do.

7) Whether men like it or not, or agree with it or not, women may or may not recognize this league stuff as existing. Ultimately, it doesn't really matter because ...

8) Most of us don't think THAT - the looks/leagues stuff - is "what matters" when it comes down to whether we, as individual women, will see potential in dating this guy, or that guy, or that guy over there.

9) Yes, of course we know our looks play a part in our opportunities with men; we also know that whether we have many or few opportunities, we still don't make our dating decisions based on how "good looking to the masses" we think he is relative to our other opportunities. I can't imagine a stupider or more futile decision-making basis, regardless of the size of my "opportunities" pool. I'd be better off picking one of the names out a hat.
 DivineBovine
Joined: 5/13/2005
Msg: 370
view profile
History
Dating within' your League
Posted: 6/28/2010 8:26:15 PM

the ASSUMPTION that 'external' & 'internal' beauty absolutely cannot co-exist, and almost that the homelier one is, the better personality one has ( I would dispute that conclusion!)


and yet many sociological studies indicate that people in general assign positive character traits to people who are "beautiful" and negative ones to those who are "ugly".

the "beautiful" person is automatically assumed to be smart, kind, clean, and disciplined. which goes a long way toward explaining why they get better marks in school and make more money than the rest of us mere mortals. they also get better service in stores, and even hospitals - meaning they also live longer.

the "homely" people are divided into two camps - those who become embittered by the unfairness of their lot in life and those who try to become pleasant and engaging individuals in order to compensate for their lacking in the looks department.

and in our media age, it's not difficult to see what is held out to us as an archetype of beauty - female or male - and, yes, to see where we fit on the scale of those archetypes. you don't have to agree with them - but they do exist.
 MsMicki
Joined: 10/2/2006
Msg: 371
view profile
History
Dating within' your League
Posted: 6/28/2010 8:31:22 PM

To take an example, there are very few men who would HONESTLY not find Megan Fox physically attractive. there MIGHT be a few..

there would be many more who realize that she is 'out of their league' and they would NEVER have a shot with her, so they will make all kinds of nasty comments "she's not that attractive", "she's stupid", she has a sh1tty personality, "she's a ho" , etc. etc.


putting limitations on oneself because of another's physical attributes is nothing but insecurity.
You THINK Megan Fox is out of your "league"......then she will be.
By this way of thinking......you are also stereo-typing!
You , in your mind, have rationalized that because she is beautiful, she thinks herself better than you.
You lose, because you never give yourself the chance to know the "real" woman behind the glamour. And she loses because the only men with the balls to approach her think they are in a superior "league".

Ever see a really beautiful woman with an "average" looking man and wonder what she is doing with him?
Well guess what......he obviously didn't think in "leagues"!
And neither does she!
 MrFication
Joined: 5/6/2010
Msg: 372
view profile
History
Dating within' your League
Posted: 6/28/2010 9:15:29 PM
Psychologists and anthropologists have done research into the theory of 'attractive to the masses'. For both men and women, symmetry (especially) facial plays a large role in how attractive a person is deemed. They found that the digitally created face that was the most average was found to be most attractive, i.e. average size/placement of ears, width/length of nose, etc. For men, the masses of women look for a 'V' torso. For the women, the masses of men tended for a waist to hip ratio of 0.7, or BMI of 20. So there is some meat behind C-R's statement about a hot commodity based on attractiveness to the masses. But people, individuals, override the primal indicators to choose overall physical attractiveness.


IT IS A RARE WOMAN WHO WILL DATE BASED ON VISUAL APPEAL ALONE.

What percent of the population would qualify as rare? I personally don't think it is rare--for the first date. I may be in my own little world on this one, but I have seen many women do some extraordinary things to get a first date with a 'hot' guy. Many were very irrational things--parking lot fender benders, taking up some new hobby they could care less for, etc. The following is just one of my experiences....a friend of mine is 'that guy', the guy most other guys hate---one of the "10's". He goes to a grocercy store and almost every woman there will ram into his cart, and then do it again on every aisle, and then the checkout line. Almost every cup of coffee he gets has a phone number on the bottom of it. Women outright ask him for sex in elevators, airplanes, bars (duh), business meetings, etc. Some are more reserved and ask to go for drinks or dinner. Women can be like ninjas.....none in sight, but as soon as he is around they start springing to from out of nowhere. So I am convinced that it really is not that rare for women to go on visual appeal alone--when they can find it.
 mr.evil
Joined: 11/14/2009
Msg: 373
Dating within' your League
Posted: 6/28/2010 10:16:22 PM
"the fact of having no pic of yourself speaks volumes"

Oh boohoo! I am pictureless, sniff sniff! Sorry Markus, didn't like it, was a little fuzzy, at a fetish rave, so he sent me a nasty note and took it down. So keep your volumes to yourself please!

I have no problem getting dates on here. In fact 12 since I rejoined last november, mostly without a pic! 17 in 14 months last trip with a pic, so sorry, your point is moot.

As for my assessment of those of high caliber looks, the uber beautiful. I've met enough of them in my life to have a good opinion. I'll more than concede, some are smart, some are nice, some even are genuine. There though the line ends, because that "some" is a very small number of the total. Mostly they live in the world of "entitlement", granted to them by looks.

Velvet ropes part, dates line up just for the sake of her company, or his as the case maybe. Over time, that attitude of expectation, becomes an engrained habit. Causing the development of the "lower lip pout" when something or someone doesn't march down their street!

Are there exceptions? Of course there are. Same as what we are arguing about. Mr. joe average getting it on with Helen Hottie. Only helen knows enough that it is "what attracts" her to him BEYOND looks that gets er done, not looks alone.

Frankly pal, I've had my share and then some of that type. You can have them, with all their drama, demands and the rest. Aside from that, I'm a little older and past the "oh she's so gorgeous" stage in my life.

I'm not saying I wouldn't like to be attracted to her physically, just I need more than that to butter the biscuit. If you can't understand that, no point arguing, you'll be lost till you figure it out. You know what it comes down to, there are a boatload of women in ferrari bodies, with Yugo minds under the hood. No, by all means, not all good looking women, but more than you would think. Further what you will find, is even with a great mind, many times comes a sh1tty atitude. Now you maybe OK with that, I'm not, sorry.

hahahaha!!!
 Confident-Realist
Joined: 2/8/2004
Msg: 374
Dating within' your League
Posted: 6/29/2010 9:51:02 AM

But here's vv my "answer" again.
C-R, you seem be assuming I'm motivated to post by "bitterness" or a perceived "unfairness" about how men (and women?) perceive women.

That's not answering the question. Say what you want to say, but don't say you're directly answering a question and dancing around it.

There IS NO VAST MAJORITY opinion when it comes to which particular guy "women en masse" will find "attractive to date."

Not necessarily the same exact opinion -- but to at least say the one guys is clearly better looking than the other guy. Now, you can pick two guys where it'd be up in the air -- for sure -- and that's what you're focusing on. And I'm never said looks alone was the reason to form a relationship. But looks & status are the most important factors that drives desirability in the opposite sex. It doesn't mean that desirability in that INDIVIDUAL will last for a long time after they get to know them. But it does in terms of garnering someone's interest in order TO get to know them.

This thread is about (heterosexual) dating decisions

Well, the topic went into "do leagues exist"? It begs the question -- what is a 'league'? In the context it's used, it's used when comparing two people -- where one is -clearly- more desirable by the opposite sex (in general) on the dating circuit than the other. For those who say that doesn't exist in reality, they are saying that the opposite sex sees everyone with the SAME desirability, statistically speaking. And that is childish. Just because someone doesn't like high school where looks & popularity were basically the ONLY things that mattered to everyone, doesn't mean two different people picked out of a crowd CAN have a large gap between them as far as desirability by the opposite sex is concerned.

IT IS A RARE WOMAN WHO WILL DATE BASED ON VISUAL APPEAL ALONE. Even more true for 2nd+ dates.

I never implied that. Also -- nobody goes by personality alone, either. I could see personality being closer to what you claim -- that everyone's tastes are pretty much evenly dispursed on all ends of the spectrum, but I'd still disagree with that (like most women not preferring doormats of a guy).

Women (as in adult females, not teens) do not routinely, if ever, engage in this "looks market comparison" before deciding to date someone

I never said that either. It's pretty natural and requires no computational exercise. Women absorb how good looking a guy is. It plays a huge factor in whether she's going to be interested in a guy or not. I do not mean that a majority of women ONLY go for the HOTTEST guy and have a comparison sheet in a personal organizer. But any man or woman is going to be far far far more apt to deny someone they find physically unattractive vs someone they find very physically attractive. And statistically, a woman is going to be far far more apt to deny someone with virtually no status (like no job; odd min-wage jobs when he can) vs a guy who has a nice sold career paying job.

They don't have to do computations. Whether they know it or not, many (not all) are going to go in those directions over the other.

ATTRACTION FOR DATING is the entire package of looks (her individual standard) + expressed personality + whatever else she deems important (which we can only guess at unless we know her).

Have you tried dating women? Have you seen the studies on what women end up going for? Looks #1, Status #2. Same for guys.

They set up a speed dating situation. You've got about 5 mins to talk to someone -- so you dont get to know too much about them, just the basics. What women & men say they like in someone differs than what they go for. Both women and men -- looks #1, status #2, is the trend. And no, they weren't teens. But NO, looks and status aren't everything! It's just what 'league' refers to! Things that are special about someone outside those two main things is what allows someone to get a guy or gal "out of their league".

Yes, of course we know our looks play a part in our opportunities with men

And vice versa.

we still don't make our dating decisions based on how "good looking to the masses" we think he is relative to our other opportunities

I've never ever even implied that. You've totally misinterpreted my posts.

putting limitations on oneself because of another's physical attributes is nothing but insecurity.

Who said I'm PUTTING limitations on myself?

You THINK Megan Fox is out of your "league"......then she will be.

So you'd tell a guy who's 4'8", 180lbs of flubber with scalely skin and unemployed that Megan Fox is out of his 'league' ONLY when he believes she is? But if he doesn't believe that, he has just as much of a chance as a charming, intelligent male model-looking guy with a great job?

Ever see a really beautiful woman with an "average" looking man and wonder what she is doing with him?

Wait -- you can't believe in "average", though. What you describe means there ARE differences in people's looks consistent with an audience. That means there ARE differences in desirability, even when looks doesn't mean everything. Status is another thing (fame, money, job-importance).

Saying there's no such thing as 'leagues' means every individual's looks is EVENLY seen as either ugly or average or hot, by an audience. Hence, you can't say "have you ever seen a 'hot' guy who...." or "have you ever seen a beautiful woman with an 'average' guy...".

But with that said -- there IS such thing as people dating someone who is clearly better looking than them. Yes. Status comes into play, too.

Take Drew Carey. If he wasn't famous, he would have a LOT harder time finding a gal to date -- mainly because he has it so EASY because he's famous. It's not all about looks.

Also -- married couples over the years can have one of them go from hot to average.

But for just a guy and a girl, say, at a bar? Yes, I have seen that -- and it IS noticeable. It's noticeable when the guy's just average and not sporting anything resembling $$, and she's gorgeous. You wonder why. It's NOT common -- that's why it's noticeable! But if you find out -- OH, he has tons of cash... OKAY, makes sense. Or maybe they aren't a couple really -- co-workers where he as a crush on her and she's just tipsy -- alright.

BUT again, yes, sometimes, they are a couple -- he doesn't have an amazing job, but she has an amazing face & body, while he's OKAY looking at best. Yep -- very noticeable -- because it's uncommon. I never said it's impossible for that to happen. Just that chances are lower.
 deltadallas
Joined: 7/13/2009
Msg: 375
view profile
History
Dating within' your League
Posted: 6/29/2010 10:07:16 AM
i will not write a book or essay like some folks here because i dont have the time, got stuff to do before going to class/work. when it comes to dating in or out your league it depends what you or a person consider their "league? " there's a gizzillion folks doing this and don't have a problem. ex. katie holmes and tom cruise , elin nordgern and tiger woods, stedman and oprah, k fed and britney spears, debbie rowe and michael jackson.

what's wrong to be a size a and want to be a size D ? if i want to date or move up a notch to date men like Denzel washington or bill gates as long as these men are single. what's wrong with that ? the focus should be do these people have things in common such as religion, interests, family ties and not so much income or even education.
Show ALL Forums  > Dating Experiences  > Dating within' your "League"