Leagues in Romance (ugly, attraction, attract, people)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The thing about the US, which is a highly superficial society that is based almost completely on consumerism and image, is that people in certain leagues ARE considered better than others.
It's a hard pill to swallow and I even denied it for years, but it is what it is, ultimately.
I have never found this to be the case. That was my point. Other people are only better than you if you choose to let yourself believe that they are.
Pick a random celebrity. Are they REALLY better than anyone else? If so, why?
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
How is this stupid? If I can't get into Harvard, I'll go to the flagship State U, even though my heart was set on Harvard and I spent my high-school years proudly wearing Harvard-emblazoned clothing. If I can't get into flagship State U., I'll go to the local university. If I can't even get in there, I'll go to the local community college - even though that's completely contrary to my initial hopes and dreams.
If Harvard rejects me, should I recoil in indignation and forego college entirely?
Finally we've hit the crux of the matter! Yes, of course it's useful for a man to be handsome and for a woman to be beautiful, but it's more important to be likable. A physically attractive person has an advantage in making good first impression, and perhaps in making quick sexual conquest. Obviously! But a person who is unlikable will struggle in the modern dating culture, as concerns passage to stable relationship and marriage, even if that person is physically attractive, affluent and so forth. But "likability" is much more amorphous and slippery than physical sex-appeal. It's very hard to define and varies so enormously. But if likability is so important, and yet so confusingly hard to quantify, does that not obviate the concept of "leagues"?
If we take risibly extreme examples consistent with our point, that does not prove the general point. The profoundly ugly, obnoxious and deficient are going to struggle dating the most elegant and desirable. That doesn't demonstrate that some mix of looks, wealth, charisma and so forth can be packaged into a narrow range, and those ranges neatly lined up from end to end, which is what the concept of "leagues" implies.
Following the second post quoted above, consider a bunch of guys who aren't short/obese/bald etc., but who vary widely in their qualities, including their likeability, from Scarlett's viewpoint. Would she not choose the most likable, even if he's poorer or fatter than most of her other suitors? Strictly speaking, he is in a lower league, but he wins, because he appeals to Scarlett to an extent that others don't.
You can make this argument with anything except dating. So you teliing me that if you couldn't get the women you wanted you would take anything even a women your not attracted to? Leave out personality.
Your mom and my mom are exactly the same with that lol.
My brother is always telling me I should give someone a chance, and my mom wants me to date "somebody." They think I am incredibly naive when it comes to guys but I'm really not. If I'm not attracted to them in the least, I am not going to potentially break someone's heart simply because I've never had anything like that before. It's weak to me.
The kind of person I am, my feelings have a mind of their own. I have no control of them and I hardly ever like any one. I wish it was different but I can't change it. NOBODY understands that, and it frustrating trying to explain it, and ultimately makes feel bad about it.
The main thing I really look for is mutual attraction, as well as a few other things.
Glad to know it's not just my mother. Also, your brother is different from mine. My brother says I never need to meet anyone-which is quite selfish of him.
That's the thing some don't get. You can't force attraction. Not saying you can't be attracted. But when you go on dates while giving chance, it's more pressure, and runs the risk of leading people on. They're happy and having good dates, maybe wanting more, while the unattracted is still eh on them romantically, and you have to break that to them when they start wanting more-as kiss, calling you bf/gf, sex, etc. Then you have to tell them you don't like them that way. So, then they're blind-sided, and you wasted their time and yanked a rug from under them. Dangling something in front of them, and snatching it. And I don't mean it from an arrogant standpoint that they can't live without you. But they apparently were attracted and did like you, so it's best not to date them and act like you do.
I don't thing my wants and likes are too high. The personality traits I like have made men look better. So physical is what you 1st notice. So, if they aren't attractive to me by looks, I would need to see other parts of their character 1st, as friends or casual hang-outs, before any kind of dates and romantic attempts. It's less pressure that way. But the reverse.
If they're hot, but seem like a jerk in any way, i'll be gone damn fast.
Looks are part of the package, but only a part, and not the only one, Personality is the bigger part. Looks can be there, or fall into place later, after being attracted to personality, but the personality is a bigger thing. But it's a chance they seeing their personality, you can like them, but not romantically. So, you gave chance, something could build, or you can stay friends or split ways. but casual hang-outs with low expectations works better on the off chance one party just never starts feeling it.
Last edited by HappyRain; 09-01-2014 at 01:42 PM..
I have never found this to be the case. That was my point. Other people are only better than you if you choose to let yourself believe that they are.
Well, this pretty much defines my observations. Good-looking people stick together, generally. Sure, there are exceptions. But the exceptions don't make the rule untrue.
Quote:
Pick a random celebrity. Are they REALLY better than anyone else? If so, why?
I agree with you. I don't believe they are either. But the vast majority of people would disagree with both of us. Just how things work.
Not really. We do not actually know ScarJo. Maybe she thinks short, bald guys are sexy.
Maybe. I guess Danny Davito is in luck then :P That would put her firmly in the minority though. I never said leagues are laws of who you're going to date and neatly defined. I'm saying that its an effect based on the fact that people that commonly seen as attractive have more options and can afford to be picky.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cristo666
Maybe. From what I've personally observed, looks are the most important of defining someone's league. When I say that someone is out of my league, I basically mean that they're too hot for me. I never even considered looking at the other things.
For example, last year, I unsuccessfully asked out a girl that is 8 years older than me, just got her first job, and still lives at home with her parents. Meanwhile, I make a six figure salary, live alone, and am highly educated. However, she is EXTREMELY good-looking, whereas I'm just average (at best).
Well, she turned me down, in my opinion, because she's so far out of my league looks-wise.
That could be more true for men and how an attractive woman is going to have more competition surrounding her.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ohio_peasant
Finally we've hit the crux of the matter! Yes, of course it's useful for a man to be handsome and for a woman to be beautiful, but it's more important to be likable. A physically attractive person has an advantage in making good first impression, and perhaps in making quick sexual conquest. Obviously! But a person who is unlikable will struggle in the modern dating culture, as concerns passage to stable relationship and marriage, even if that person is physically attractive, affluent and so forth. But "likability" is much more amorphous and slippery than physical sex-appeal. It's very hard to define and varies so enormously. But if likability is so important, and yet so confusingly hard to quantify, does that not obviate the concept of "leagues"?
I'd say the whole concept of leagues hinges on the fact that the majority people's tastes really aren't as different as we sometimes like to think. Most men are going to find a fit self sufficient woman who is nice sane and sociable rather attractive. This person can afford to be pickier than someone who has a trait or traits that are generally less desirable to the majority of people like being fat or antisocial.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ohio_peasant
If we take risibly extreme examples consistent with our point, that does not prove the general point. The profoundly ugly, obnoxious and deficient are going to struggle dating the most elegant and desirable. That doesn't demonstrate that some mix of looks, wealth, charisma and so forth can be packaged into a narrow range, and those ranges neatly lined up from end to end, which is what the concept of "leagues" implies.
Its not segregated into narrow categories. I do think its impossible to say one person is a 6/10 and therefore can't date an 8/10. At the same time you could say people that are generally considered to be on the bottom half even are going to have a hard time reaching for the top quarter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ohio_peasant
Following the second post quoted above, consider a bunch of guys who aren't short/obese/bald etc., but who vary widely in their qualities, including their likeability, from Scarlett's viewpoint. Would she not choose the most likable, even if he's poorer or fatter than most of her other suitors? Strictly speaking, he is in a lower league, but he wins, because he appeals to Scarlett to an extent that others don't.
That's just personal taste since leagues aren't defined like that. Its simply just about the competition and how you're chances are diminished as a potential suitor because of it.
That's just personal taste since leagues aren't defined like that. Its simply just about the competition and how you're chances are diminished as a potential suitor because of it.
Just about every woman that I've ever met has the ideal of a tall, good-looking guy with a good job and lots of friends.
It's not "personal taste" when everyone wants the same thing. It's the reason why you have some guys that get a TON of girls and other guys that get no girls. If it was just down to personal taste and everyone truly had their own preferences and not universal preferences, then these kinds of things wouldn't happen.
Glad to know it's not just my mother. Also, your brother is different from mine. My brother says I never need to meet anyone-which is quite selfish of him.
That's the thing some don't get. You can't force attraction. Not saying you can't be attracted. But when you go on dates while giving chance, it's more pressure, and runs the risk of leading people on. They're happy and having good dates, maybe wanting more, while the unattracted is still eh on them romantically, and you have to break that to them when they start wanting more-as kiss, calling you bf/gf, sex, etc. Then you have to tell them you don't like them that way. So, then they're blind-sided, and you wasted their time and yanked a rug from under them. Dangling something in front of them, and snatching it. And I don't mean it from an arrogant standpoint that they can't live without you. But they apparently were attracted and did like you, so it's best not to date them and act like you do.
I don't thing my wants and likes are too high. The personality traits I like have made men look better. So physical is what you 1st notice. So, if they aren't attractive to me by looks, I would need to see other parts of their character 1st, as friends or casual hang-outs, before any kind of dates and romantic attempts. It's less pressure that way. But the reverse.
If they're hot, but seem like a jerk in any way, i'll be gone damn fast.
Looks are part of the package, but only a part, and not the only one, Personality is the bigger part. Looks can be there, or fall into place later, after being attracted to personality, but the personality is a bigger thing. But it's a chance they seeing their personality, you can like them, but not romantically. So, you gave chance, something could build, or you can stay friends or split ways. but casual hang-outs with low expectations works better on the off chance one party just never starts feeling it.
Part of it comes from the fact that everyone around them was dating by a certain age when they were young.
Yes I agree he has to be attractive to ME...not anyone else, but if he turns out to be an @ss then I'm gone. There was this one guy who I met at the mall, he was working, and I was shopping. He walked up to me and started talking to me his entire shift and gave me his number. After about a few weeks his personality came out and completely turned me off.
He was not patient in the least and kept telling me how I need to let him into my heart when I only knew him for a few weeks. I was trying to fill him out and see if I liked him, and I told him that. He started to become really rude and seemed like he would be potentially abusive towards me. I stopped talking to him instantly. He ran back to his ex in less than a day so his feelings were not genuine at all.
I'm no model, and I don't want anyone that is celebrity hot or what everyone thinks is attractive. He just has to be attractive to me and have a good personality. I can't require much, not that I want to anyway. My mom and brother say I am pretty single by circumstance and that I am too picky. I don't think so, not in the least. Wanting mutual attraction isn't much.
So you teliing me that if you couldn't get the women you wanted you would take anything even a women your not attracted to? Leave out personality.
Barring some pathological outliers, yes, I would. If a woman is to me outright physically repulsive, then indeed such partnership would be folly. But if she's plain and unappealing, such a barrier could, I think, be overcome. Vastly more important is the requirement stated below.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alicecooperfan
I'd say the whole concept of leagues hinges on the fact that the majority people's tastes really aren't as different as we sometimes like to think. Most men are going to find a fit self sufficient woman who is nice sane and sociable rather attractive. This person can afford to be pickier than someone who has a trait or traits that are generally less desirable to the majority of people like being fat or antisocial.
I'd say that you're right, in that "leagues" are contingent upon most people having similar tastes, and furthermore the subject of those tastes being observable and quantifiable. But I assert that "likability" is not quantifiable, and is the great variable for which we fail to account. Further, the issue of tastes isn't so clear. Some men prefer a docile, compliant woman. Others wish for an independent and assertive one. Still others prefer a radical counterculture type, who in conservative society would be "insane". Because desires do differ so much, one man's "low-league" woman would be another man's "high-league" woman.
My personal situation is that I'm child-free and am looking for a child-free woman. There's a vast plenitude of local woman whom I could potentially date, were I not to have had this requirement. Instead my efforts are highly stymied. And presumably with such values, my own appeal suffers similar decline, in the eyes of women who are interested in marriage and family-formation. Upon initial approach I might be relatively high-league, so to speak; but after exchange of pleasantries and enunciation of basic values, I'd greatly fall in her estimation, and she in mine, if she's a breeder (that's the derogatory term that we anti-natalists use for people who have children, or who wish to have children). But at some sort of national convention of anti-natalists, I'd presumably be in a high league. Leagues, then, are a question of the milieu in which we find ourselves, and not a broadly-applicable standard... which obviates the whole term.
Just about every woman that I've ever met has the ideal of a tall, good-looking guy with a good job and lots of friends.
It's not "personal taste" when everyone wants the same thing. It's the reason why you have some guys that get a TON of girls and other guys that get no girls. If it was just down to personal taste and everyone truly had their own preferences and not universal preferences, then these kinds of things wouldn't happen.
Yeah my good looking friend literally is attractive to almost every women he meets and any women I heard talk About him mention how good looking he is meanwhile I'm the opposite..
This idea that every women has such a different taste in who or what is attractive is comical..
Yeah my good looking friend literally is attractive to almost every women he meets and any women I heard talk About him mention how good looking he is meanwhile I'm the opposite..
This idea that every women has such a different taste in who or what is attractive is comical..
I reped you but no matter how many times you say it women will call you a liar or say your whining which really annoys me. You should check out mgtow it helps me to know im not alone.
Last edited by stinkerr; 09-01-2014 at 04:02 PM..
Reason: edit
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
