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.
I still don't understand how one determines what their own "league" is. If such a thing exists, there really needs to be some sort of infographic to help us figure it out.
Why oh why does the opinion persist that online dating is only for fat losers? Why? Even when you see for yourself that most of the women online are quite acceptable looking you're still wondering about it. It is because these women (and men) are so visually acceptable that they find an online environment that gets the looks issue out of the way quickly so they can find out what they really want to know: how much money do you make/have... LOL... kind of...
But these women can easily find someone in person, so why are they on online dating? I guess you make a good point in that it's because they can maybe find someone with both looks & money, but who wants to be with a woman like that if a big part of the reason they're with you is just because you make good money? This whole dating thing just makes no sense to me.
I still don't understand how one determines what their own "league" is. If such a thing exists, there really needs to be some sort of infographic to help us figure it out.
It is almost always about looks, specifically, and it is almost always mentioned by a plain-to-unattractive man who is shooting for the uber-hotties (physically...people who are looking for more well-rounded relationships see more than just looks as "hot").
I mean that's what I've seen it boil down to on here, again and again and again.
I agree that "leagues" are dumb, as is the whole "I'm shooting for a 7 because 7s are more grateful and less snotty than 9s but I'd prefer a 9 but...hypergamy...and blah blah yadda yadda false stats baloney truisms blah" sort of balderdash. But it's sort of a repeat theme around here, as well as all the fallout ("top 20% of men," "top tier," "marketability" and so on).
I don't think I've EVER seen a man on CD-R ask about "leagues" and NOT be talking about looks, and nothing but looks, full stop.
Last edited by JerZ; 06-08-2016 at 11:52 AM..
Reason: misspelling
So, it's more navel-gazing, as a substitute for actually getting out there and trying to get know people. Geez, people really make this a lot harder than it has to be.
It is almost always about looks, specifically, and it is almost always mentioned by a plan-to-unattractive man who is shooting for the uber-hotties (physically...people who are looking for more well-rounded relationships see more than just looks as "hot").
I mean that's what I've seen it boil down to on here, again and again and again.
I agree that "leagues" are dumb, as is the whole "I'm shooting for a 7 because 7s are more grateful and less snotty than 9s but I'd prefer a 9 but...hypergamy...and blah blah yadda yadda false stats baloney truisms blah" sort of balderdash. But it's sort of a repeat theme around here, as well as all the fallout ("top 20% of men," "top tier," "marketability" and so on).
I don't think I've EVER seen a man on CD-R ask about "leagues" and NOT be talking about looks, and nothing but looks, full stop.
And really, the ones saying that are saying it like 7 is bad. If we're going 1-10, a 7 is above average. And a 5 is average. I don't see how average is supposed to be bad, it's not. hence why it's called "average."
So the person is still shooting for an above average looking women when they say they want 6s and 7s. But I always hated 1-10 ratings, as it seems drastic. 1-5 seems better. lol
Are there leagues for decent, intelligent, interesting, emotionally healthy people who can sustain loving relationships? That's the league people should want to date in.
Are there leagues for decent, intelligent, interesting, emotionally healthy people who can sustain loving relationships? That's the league people should want to date in.
And many do, and wind up with a quality relationship.
The rest wind up on CD asking why they just can't score.
And really, the ones saying that are saying it like 7 is bad. If we're going 1-10, a 7 is above average. And a 5 is average. I don't see how average is supposed to be bad, it's not. hence why it's called "average."
So the person is still shooting for an above average looking women when they say they want 6s and 7s. But I always hated 1-10 ratings, as it seems drastic. 1-5 seems better. lol
The problem is most guys want a woman that's above average so that's why so many stay single or just settle for someone they're not that into which leads to cheating/breakups. Women don't care about looks as much except for through online dating it seems. But I just don't get the logic in how a woman could reject you online but that same woman could than be interested in you in person?
Location: RI, MA, VT, WI, IL, CA, IN (that one sucked), KY
41,936 posts, read 36,974,024 times
Reputation: 40635
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jersey4Life
The problem is most guys want a woman that's above average so that's why so many stay single or just settle for someone they're not that into which leads to cheating/breakups. Women don't care about looks as much except for through online dating it seems. But I just don't get the logic in how a woman could reject you online but that same woman could than be interested in you in person?
Why are you looking for logic in chemistry? Chemistry isn't about logic, it is about an exchange between people and what feelings and vibes come from that. That's the first thing that happens when you meet in real life, you determine if it is there or not.
Online is about whether you want to give the person the time to have the chance to determine if it is there or not.
The experiences aren't the same, the steps aren't the same, so the results won't be the same. Simple.
The problem is most guys want a woman that's above average so that's why so many stay single or just settle for someone they're not that into which leads to cheating/breakups. Women don't care about looks as much except for through online dating it seems. But I just don't get the logic in how a woman could reject you online but that same woman could than be interested in you in person?
Because online is one-dimensional...you're looking at images of a person in freeze-frame and a bio. There's no warmth, there's no "real" experience that many women desire (I won't speak for all women) which absolutely DOES figure into attraction (for those women).
Online, you're not getting a rounded, 3D (both literally and figuratively) look at and feel for the person as a whole, complete person. You're not listening to him talk, seeing the gestures he makes, watching the marvelous things that happen to his face when he smiles and so on. That's not to say no relationships start with OLD; many do. But you're asking for the differences and these are the differences as I see them.
You keep mentioning, either outright or intimation, that OLD isn't working out for you at all, so why keep asking "why"? Why not just approach women IRL instead? It's not working out. That's clear. End of story. Get off the computer and meet women in realtime circumstances.
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.
