Do any of you believe in leagues? (date, marrying, men)

[Ruth4Truth]

Originally Posted by Enil

Yes, it is. I know of several young men who have it once or twice per week, and its usually the woman who instigates. I know of one woman who is rather beautiful and her boyfriend has tired of having sex with her(he's average looking). It does seem that most women have this notion that men can't get enough of sex and that most young men are having 24/7 sex when they have a relationship, if they can get it. Its funny.

So who were these friends of yours who were complaining that they weren't getting enough from their gf's, then? You seem to be changing your tune on this issue.

[NDak15]

Originally Posted by 49ersfan27

I am realistic. I am a 5 at best, there is no way I would approach a woman who is a 7 or higher even if I was attracted to her. It's a rejection waiting to happen. Most women are out of my league and that is why I have never approached one. Enough about me. Do you believe in leagues?

I agree that leagues exist, that's just the way things are. I don't believe or not believe in them because they are not a religion or political so the phrase "believe in" doesn't apply.

[Molli]

Originally Posted by Enil

It was me. It was my pleasure. don't forget, if you are a natural blonde, you aren't a strong 7.5. You're at least a 9.

I'm a natural blonde and men seem to be highly attracted to blondes or not attracted at all. I think it really depends on the man. And some make assumptions that blondes are stoooopid, and since enough fake act that they are I can understand those assumptions!

[intelfan11315]

Leagues exist, but it's simply a matter of percentages. If you constantly go for girls that are out of your league then you might get one but it's going to happen a lot less.

[ohio_peasant]

These "league" threads keep cropping up. Why? Because it's appealing to be able to compartmentalize people and to ascribe one's own failure to having made the simple mistake of playing in too exalted of a "league", just as would happen to an athlete of modest ability attempting to play with elite professionals. The opposing argument, that pigeonholing and quantifying people is stupid, only provokes the response that however stupid too pedantic of an application of generalizations to any specific case may be, nevertheless such generalizations do exist, and it's disingenuous to dismiss them.

The trouble with all of this, at least in the context of dating, is that there are intrinsic and extrinsic traits or qualities. Intelligence, wealth, beauty and the like, are all intrinsic qualities. Person A has some amount of beauty. What is that amount? Is it entirely subjective? No, not entirely. So let's stipulate for a moment that person A has some quantity of beauty, and that that beauty is quantifiable. Ah, but then come the extrinsic aspects… what A does with that beauty! Is A reclusive? Is he/she sullen and off-putting, on those rare occasions that A is in public? Maybe A is also intelligent and well-spoken. Again, those are intrinsic properties. But what if A has very strange and unusual views, that to most people are repulsive? What if A behaves in abrasive, brash way, that annoys people? Maybe A just doesn't like people, and enjoys insulting them, deriving amusement from the act. So much for that beauty and intelligence….

If dating were all about intrinsic properties, lining people up and ranking them according to income, height, broadness of shoulders, breast size and so forth, then we could assign a numerical score to all of these features, perform a weighted sum, and arrive at a cumulative score, which perhaps could be tattooed on the person's forehead.

But this completely ignores the extrinsic features! Let's suppose for a moment that I'm a great guy (please, humor me just this once!). But if I don't DO anything with my greatness, it's worthless. I might be in a high league in theory, based on my intrinsic properties… but in a low league in practice, because I don't take advantage of those properties. The reverse is also possible.

Dating is complicated. It would be great if we could rationalize our failures and our triumphs on the basis of comparing intrinsic worth – but we can't. There are too many exogenous variables.

[Raena77]

This use to be my playground
This use to be my childhood dreams
This use to be to be.....

[orangeapple]

Originally Posted by Enil

depends on the age of the woman. I mention only the woman because attractive men have the same sex drive as below or average men, and they can manage to find themselves attracted in some way to most women. Where it concerns women, now that's a different matter. Most women are not attracted visually or sexually to most men. You have the endless threads of men asking if they are inside the Friendzone and why they are in that place, which shows most women will not find the emotional/personality characterization of their male friends, good enough to turn that into sex attraction and to a romantic relationship.

Women who are younger than 25 are more concerned about the man's looks than older women. How tall he is when compared to other men, how cute/boyish he is(for the 18-22 year old women) and how me measures up when she compares her boyfriend with the boyfriends of her girlfriends.

Women in their mid-20s are looking for a guy who is going places. Is he a med student? STEM jobs are booming right now, these guys will make big bucks in the future. Many 25 year old women focus on these guys. 30-something women are looking for marriage and children, mostly. I'd advice you to stay away from that age group because alimony and child-support, by watching the effects it has on men, are not a good idea.

Of course money is the great equalizer. I've seen quite average/short/ugly men married to very beautiful Scandinavian blonde women. In the end, its the big bucks that do the speaking.

There may be a sliver of people who base attraction primarily on objective criteria, which for women is usually looks & for men is money/power/status. But they are not the majority nor do they define human nature. Rather, I'd say they are out of touch with their personal, human needs.

Most women are not attracted visually to most men - probably true, but sexual attraction is not the same as visual attraction. For many women, emotional attraction wins out over visual attraction, which is why many women respond neutrally to most men initially, until an emotional dynamic is established. From there, the sexual attraction will grow or it will not.

There are many kinds of emotional dynamics - this accounts for not finding some men attractive but enjoying them as friends. And this is not black & white - there is some degree of physical attraction still needed, whether it's initial or grows out of dynamic.

Another point is women often agree far less on what is physically attractive in a man for a relationship (there are studies to support this). Women don't compete like men do. Your assertion that women compare their boyfriends? Never seen it. I don't think it happens with most. We're not looking for trophies; it doesn't benefit us socially as it does men. Women are a lot more comfortable in their individual taste. So perhaps instead of finding many men attractive as individuals, women as an group vary enough in taste to cover a wide range of men.

The rest of your post becomes just a bunch of cynical stereotypes that are unfounded. We all have our own anecdotes to counter it. I'm 30 - don't want kids, don't care for tons of money, have dated someone short & broke, etc. I'm looking for a certain emotional dynamic & shared values/passions. In talking with other women, I'm not that strange.

Originally Posted by Enil

The 20-something men who are paired up with women of average-looks or below their own looks aren't going to feel particularly drawn into having a lot of sex with their steady girlfriends. They have the urge for sex, but they're either tired of having sex with the girlfriend or she doesn't do it for him. Put number 6 from BattleStar Galactica in front of a 22 year old boy and we'll see who has the higher sex drive.

Put Brad Pitt in is prime in front of a woman (of any age!) and THEN make your comparison.

Your argument is actually suggesting that BOTH men's & women's sex drives are largely connected to how hot their partner (or prospective partner) is. You contradict yourself here, because first you suggest men "manage" to find themselves attracted to most women (despite their "league"), but then later note a lag in a man's drive is due to his partner being "average" or below & that his drive would be kickstarted if only a hot woman was available. So looks like he's not managing to find just any woman attractive; he seems equally dependent on the partner being attractive enough. You make the same argument for women - that the man only needs to be hot enough.

If women choose to settle less (the "enough" threshold is higher), it's not lack of sex drive or finding less percentage of men attractive than men find in women. It's pragmatic, but not the materialistic/shallow criteria you set forth. It's about not risking pregnancy, not risking disease, not risking rape, & not risking emotional hurt (since most argue women are less detached, not the same thing as a lower drive). These things are arguably bigger risks for women. So of course they may settle less, whereas men may choose to "manage" to find a woman attractive who is not all that desirable in general.

And we women should rejoice that someone "manages" to find us attractive because there's little risk in acting on it?
That seems like one more argument for why women shouldn't settle for just any old guy who's interested in her...perhaps he is just mustering up a kernel of attraction because it's the best he can do right now & what has he got to lose? See "pump and dump", the latest of lovely phrases around here to describe a dating phenomena.

[Tantamount]

Originally Posted by CSD610

I like the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen
A League of Their Own
Major League Baseball
The National Football League
The National Hockey League

LOL! What I was thinking!
OP are you trying to decide if you should ask someone out who someone else told you is "out of your league"?
Do you feel they're "out of your league"?
If you get rejected, then you'll know for sure.

[freemkt]

Originally Posted by Enil

The 20-something men who are paired up with women of average-looks or below their own looks aren't going to feel particularly drawn into having a lot of sex with their steady girlfriends. They have the urge for sex, but they're either tired of having sex with the girlfriend or she doesn't do it for him. Put number 6 from BattleStar Galactica in front of a 22 year old boy and we'll see who has the higher sex drive.

Especially if they have difficult personalities, which can cause a downward spiral: The guy isn't very interested in having sex with the woman, which makes her more difficult to deal with, which in turn makes him even less interested in having sex with her...etc etc.

[freemkt]

Originally Posted by WyoEagle

I agree that leagues exist, that's just the way things are. I don't believe or not believe in them because they are not a religion or political so the phrase "believe in" doesn't apply.

Of course leagues exist. Recently I was traded to a Double-A team for a modest sum of cash and a "player" to be named later. (joke of questionable quality)