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.
Yes, SOME guys overestimate their attractiveness and therefore try to "date up".
I do not think there is an "up" to date. The underlying notion here appears to be that the higher the attractiveness of one person - the higher the attractiveness their potential partners have to be. As if somehow _being_ more attactive affects who you yourself will be attracted to.
There is no reason to believe this. A person will either find another person attractive - or they will not - it has nothing to do with how attractive they themselves actually are.
It has nothing to do with "dating up" therefore or how attractive one finds oneself. It is more to do with a person finding another person attractive and trying to woo them in an attempt to find out if the feeling is mutual.
There is a concept going around forums like this though that everyone has some kind of "level" on some kind of "scale" and that one should only try to date people who are on an equivalant point on this "scale". As common as this idea appears to be however - I see no reason to subscribe to it. It is nonsense.
I don't think men are more willing to sleep with "loser" women. My aunt will be considered as a "loser" woman because she doesn't even have breasts anymore. Her husband is a computer IT guy who makes six figure a year. He is also a cancer survivor. Are they both losers? I think not.
They are just madly in love because they are connected with pain, suffering, and trauma.
Looks is only very small part of the relationship. You don't need to beat the dead horse anymore.
Wrong... I can tell you that a favorite topic among many sales guys is how the bedded some woman who's "former beauty" and stuff, other words their common topic was like "she's ugly, her face is terrible now, but she banged hard in her time with many bosses, well I bedded her last night and accidentally slept over with her... you shuold'be seen me in the morning I got scared and ran away and she was like: wait, where are you going? I have to go I have some work, I'll call you!" And waiters happen to be there frequently as well, they seem to be into it maximum. I've argued it earlier when guys speak that people like Bill Gates are bedding lots of women, when in fact most promiscuous folks are waiters, wannabe musicians, chef, etc. People just don't want to accept that.
Take note that there are exceptions, of course, but those groups of folks tend to be more into it than others.
They even had a list of women they slept like that and they spoke who they are, were, where they work, etc. It's not like they speak about anonymous people.
Long story short - yes, lots of guys will bed a woman that they consider a "loser" any day.
What makes you think I "relate" to the guy? To an extent I do to an extent I don't. I was never fat. That was never a battle I had.
But you, like the host of that video, have latched onto some kind of ideal that is not necessarily based in reality. His ideal was a physical thing, yours an academic/theory thing. His ideal changed his life in that it causes him to pursue fitness as an end itself. Your ideal has caused you to pursue these theories as an end itself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supine
However, if you watched the documentary you would see he interviewed a gentleman explaining how American men have increasingly grown more concerned with their looks. The supplement industry is huge.
And he made a choice to be drawn into that. He did not have to make that choice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supine
Young men take steroids happens. I took steroids for a short time when I was in the Marine Corps and I would say about 25% of my company was on them. It was other Marines that brought me into and other Marines that shot me up.
It may have been other Marines that made it available to you, but ultimately the choice to participate was yours.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supine
Is that fantasy world? Are my Southwest medals and ribbons from not "living in the real world"? My combat action ribbon? (The combat action one I might actually agree with is not entirely "real world" accurate for the command I was in--but after the Vietnam War they gave them out easier in Desert Storm).
I don't get into "chest candy" contests with others. I'm secure enough in my career achievements I don't feel I need to do this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supine
You're making a lot of empty statements. I entered college very late. I worked in construction for years painting.
I don't simply know life from reading.
However, you don't know how stupid you sound claiming Sexual Selection is not the real world? The reason being is that it is part of the Theory of Evolution. What you're basically saying is that the Theory of Evolution is not real life--and one might infer from that that life can be understood from the bible.
The bible has many great lessons for real life. And real life in many instances is in the bible (some fiction too). And the Theory of Evolution may be wrong entirely. It may. Or maybe just in parts. Sexual Selection may be false too. It may. But the lines of evidence behind both are very persuasive.
And if Sexual Selection were false we should expect to see in real life in Muslim land no man married to multiple wives.
So, since you claim to live in the "real life" will you show me that polygyny does not exist or at least that polyandry is as common?
This is what I'm talking about. It's fine to know all of this stuff and believe these theories have some merit. Keep in mind, for every theory, there is an equal and opposite theory. Hence on a soft science (something that cannot be DEFINITIVELY proven true or false) it is best to form your own opinion based on what you've seen for yourself. I have not implied you do not have real world experience. I have implied you speak from the standpoint of one who as only read and studied, and never experienced. You yourself have admitted to never having a serious girlfriend. This is what I'm talking about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supine
By the way, doing a little Private Messaging to my detractor Marine? "Semper Fi"?
Being a fellow Marine only gets you so far. It is by no means a shoe-in for me to agree with you on one or any points you make. In fact, I didn't even know you were a Marine until your "detractor" mentioned it to me. If you said so in one of your posts, I must have missed it. Admittedly after a few lengthy and incoherent posts I began skipping your posts. In the Marine Corps today if you can say it in 10 words, don't use 11.
You have every right to continue to immerse yourself in these theories. But remember, they are theories, not life rules. Reality is life rules, and often you'll see reality varies from person to person and place to place. We are all different and respond to and interpret what we see and experience differently. Hence any theory relating to human behavior can only useful to a certain point. It is by no means a substitute for real life experiences. I value academics to a certain extent. But I much prefer to live my life in the real world.
...The underlying notion here appears to be that the higher the attractiveness of one person - the higher the attractiveness their potential partners have to be.
There is a concept going around forums like this though that everyone has some kind of "level" on some kind of "scale" and that one should only try to date people who are on an equivalant point on this "scale". As common as this idea appears to be however - I see no reason to subscribe to it. It is nonsense.
The concept isn’t limited to forums. It stems partly from traditional culture, and partly from appeal to market dynamics.
Traditional culture – that is, before modern times – segregates people into classes, typically by birth. Class is the result of one’s having chosen one’s parents, so to speak, and not the consequence of one’s achievements, other than perhaps “good breeding”, which again largely stems from advantages or disadvantages of parentage. In the traditional view, people should only mingle within their class, and certainly marry only within their class. America is ostensibly a classless society, but perhaps there’s a deeply ingrained consciousness of class? How to sublimate “class” when we disavow aristocracy and serfdom? It gets sublimated, I think, in ideas aspiring to meritocracy, that we rise or fall in class based on our willingness to work, to eschew instant gratification, to plan and to uprightly execute our plans. Yet the irony is that good looks are largely genetic! So we find the situation where society is segregated into “classes” of physical appearance, where the “high” date other “highs”, and so forth. How to penetrate the rigid distinctions of class? Through other aspects of class, for example material wealth. Thus we don’t particularly cringe when a wealthy man of mediocre appearance marries a beautiful but less wealthy woman, while we’re riven with disgust when a wealthy and beautiful woman marries a man who’s neither. The latter is the basis of aghast threads about “what does she see in him” or “why losers score the hot chicks”.
The second idea is market dynamics, namely, that dating is a “market” where the daters are selling goods/services. What do participants in the market have to offer? If your sheep and goats are sickly, why should I offer you my finest carpets or silks in exchange for them? Physical attraction becomes not some spontaneous or ineffable jolt that strikes us, but a careful sizing-up, done by the practiced eye of a wily tradesman at the public market, who knows a counterfeit from the genuine article, and quickly distinguishes the sickly from the whole, the threadbare from the richly woven. High-end goods, therefore, would be exchanged for likewise high-end goods, and so forth down the scale. If dating is a market, then for a “2” to date a “7” is simply a bad bargain. The “2” is naively accepting, the “7” connivingly bamboozling. Can the “2” be genuinely attracted to the “7”? Not if we reduce dating to a market held at the town square.
The basic idea, of both traditional class-structure and market-dynamics, is that humans can be reduced to objects, even by themselves. Attraction is not the sweep of a great oceanic feeling, but a figuring of accounts, done with tape-measure and scales, recorded in a ledger.
The concept of “level” is therefore just a consequence of people being reduced to things.
Wrong... I can tell you that a favorite topic among many sales guys is how the bedded some woman who's "former beauty" and stuff, other words their common topic was like "she's ugly, her face is terrible now, but she banged hard in her time with many bosses, well I bedded her last night and accidentally slept over with her... you shuold'be seen me in the morning I got scared and ran away and she was like: wait, where are you going? I have to go I have some work, I'll call you!" And waiters happen to be there frequently as well, they seem to be into it maximum. I've argued it earlier when guys speak that people like Bill Gates are bedding lots of women, when in fact most promiscuous folks are waiters, wannabe musicians, chef, etc. People just don't want to accept that.
Take note that there are exceptions, of course, but those groups of folks tend to be more into it than others.
They even had a list of women they slept like that and they spoke who they are, were, where they work, etc. It's not like they speak about anonymous people.
Long story short - yes, lots of guys will bed a woman that they consider a "loser" any day.
I normally don't like to label anybody "losers" but if you want to put it that way, yes, some men are losers, some women are losers too. It is not news.
MY "LOSER" cheating brother in law can still find "LOSER" women who want to sleep with him. Like I said, it doesn't surprise me.
But do I think MOST men are losers like him, not necessarily.
I don't typically associate with "sales guys" or women "banged hard in her time with many bosses". These people's mentality is not something I am familiar with. Sorry.
Since you take "sales men" as example to make a point, I am assuming I can use the people I know in real life to make my point as well. I would have to say that I've never known one male friend or family member in my life can just sleep with any women. They all have pretty high standard. Women I know in my life are pretty much the same way. We cannot sleep with anybody we don't have emotional connection with. I guess we must be living in different REAL world.
Last edited by lilyflower3191981; 07-11-2013 at 06:23 AM..
Nor did I claim it was. I merely said it is common here. And that I see no good reason to subscribe to it. Who you are attracted to is not mediated by how attractive you are yourself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ohio_peasant
In the traditional view, people should only mingle within their class, and certainly marry only within their class.
Completely tangential to what I was talking about. I am talking about finding other people physically attractive. You are talking about segregation into social classes. Entirely irrelevant to my point.
Further while actually MARRYING someone in a different class might be frowned upon - that says nothing about who one is actually attracted to physically which - again - was my point.
The concept isn’t limited to forums. It stems partly from traditional culture, and partly from appeal to market dynamics.
Traditional culture – that is, before modern times – segregates people into classes, typically by birth. Class is the result of one’s having chosen one’s parents, so to speak, and not the consequence of one’s achievements, other than perhaps “good breeding”, which again largely stems from advantages or disadvantages of parentage. In the traditional view, people should only mingle within their class, and certainly marry only within their class. America is ostensibly a classless society, but perhaps there’s a deeply ingrained consciousness of class? How to sublimate “class” when we disavow aristocracy and serfdom? It gets sublimated, I think, in ideas aspiring to meritocracy, that we rise or fall in class based on our willingness to work, to eschew instant gratification, to plan and to uprightly execute our plans. Yet the irony is that good looks are largely genetic! So we find the situation where society is segregated into “classes” of physical appearance, where the “high” date other “highs”, and so forth. How to penetrate the rigid distinctions of class? Through other aspects of class, for example material wealth. Thus we don’t particularly cringe when a wealthy man of mediocre appearance marries a beautiful but less wealthy woman, while we’re riven with disgust when a wealthy and beautiful woman marries a man who’s neither. The latter is the basis of aghast threads about “what does she see in him” or “why losers score the hot chicks”.
The second idea is market dynamics, namely, that dating is a “market” where the daters are selling goods/services. What do participants in the market have to offer? If your sheep and goats are sickly, why should I offer you my finest carpets or silks in exchange for them? Physical attraction becomes not some spontaneous or ineffable jolt that strikes us, but a careful sizing-up, done by the practiced eye of a wily tradesman at the public market, who knows a counterfeit from the genuine article, and quickly distinguishes the sickly from the whole, the threadbare from the richly woven. High-end goods, therefore, would be exchanged for likewise high-end goods, and so forth down the scale. If dating is a market, then for a “2” to date a “7” is simply a bad bargain. The “2” is naively accepting, the “7” connivingly bamboozling. Can the “2” be genuinely attracted to the “7”? Not if we reduce dating to a market held at the town square.
The basic idea, of both traditional class-structure and market-dynamics, is that humans can be reduced to objects, even by themselves. Attraction is not the sweep of a great oceanic feeling, but a figuring of accounts, done with tape-measure and scales, recorded in a ledger.
The concept of “level” is therefore just a consequence of people being reduced to things.
Don't know what the leagues /levels are. Please list in alphabetical order. Thank you.
I do not think there is an "up" to date. The underlying notion here appears to be that the higher the attractiveness of one person - the higher the attractiveness their potential partners have to be. As if somehow _being_ more attactive affects who you yourself will be attracted to.
There is no reason to believe this. A person will either find another person attractive - or they will not - it has nothing to do with how attractive they themselves actually are.
It has nothing to do with "dating up" therefore or how attractive one finds oneself. It is more to do with a person finding another person attractive and trying to woo them in an attempt to find out if the feeling is mutual.
There is a concept going around forums like this though that everyone has some kind of "level" on some kind of "scale" and that one should only try to date people who are on an equivalant point on this "scale". As common as this idea appears to be however - I see no reason to subscribe to it. It is nonsense.
We agree for once.
I put the "date up" in quotations as that was someone else's term, not mine.
Scales and levels are nonsense to us, although those from countries with caste systems might not have the luxury of our opinions
Until your not getting any play, it has to sink in at some point. Im sure guys just keep unrealisticly high standards for a long time never getting laid because of this though.
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.
