LoveShack.org Community Forums

Reload this Page LoveShack.org Community Forums > General > General Relationship Discussion

Struggling guys told to "date-within-your-league"


General Relationship Discussion Everything else under the sun. Not sure where to post? This is the place!

Like Tree169Likes
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 7th November 2017, 12:13 PM   #31
Established Member
 
WaitingForBardot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 721
Rather than worrying about my league per se, I have simply focused on women with whom I clicked. I don't just approach or talk to the ones I'm romantically inclined towards, I talk to pretty much anyone. Over time this has given me the ability to judge pretty accurately when women are interested in more with me and it is from within this group that I choose. And they have ranged so widely in terms of looks, personality, etc., that it is difficult for me to think in terms of my specific league.
__________________
"It ain't what you don't know that's so harmful, it's what you know that just ain't so." -- Mark Twain
WaitingForBardot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th November 2017, 1:59 PM   #32
Established Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: United States
Posts: 4,634
I guess my overall thought on hypothetical threads is that they tend to overcomplicate things. I mean, I get that we as a board love to overthink things, but I'm not sure how much there is to see here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GoodOnPaper View Post
So often it seems that struggling guys are accused of only being attracted to superhot women and so are told to "stay in their league" in order to be more successful. I can't help but wonder if this can really lead to any kind of relationship, whether casual or committed, that is mutually exciting for both partners. After all, if the guy in his own mind is basically pre-settling before he even talks to a woman, can you really expect him become satisfied - at least to the point where he doesn't consider himself to be "struggling" anymore?

I never intentionally dated "up" or "down" based on physical looks, but it did turn out that with the few GFs I had when I was single, I was always the one who was more interested and it always resulted in them monkeybranching to other guys. With my wife, she was the one who was more interested - while in many ways we have a good life, neither situation is ideal.
The one place where Struggling Guys are told to do anything is really on forums such as these, when they ask for advice. (I suppose anyone who struggles with dating gets unsolicited advice which includes lowering attraction standards but I don't think it is gender specific .)

I'd never advise anyone to go for someone they aren't attracted to.

Anyway, I'm not that sure about the whole "leagues" concept anyway. I've seen plenty of couples that may seem mismatched in that regard, and very often, it is the woman who would be in the higher attraction "league". I've been attracted to women in supposedly lower leagues and not attracted to women in supposedly higher leagues. It's not like we are walking around with numbers on our forehead. When people connect, they connect.
BluEyeL and Raidar like this.
__________________
You'll thank me for saying that later.

Last edited by Imajerk17; 7th November 2017 at 2:03 PM..
Imajerk17 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th November 2017, 2:58 PM   #33
Established Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 3,038
Agree with IMJ. It's about connection and the whole league thing is evaluated only by people outside of that relationship, like people on the street who only look at the two and have their own subjective criteria.

Indeed the struggling guys sometimes are in lower so called leagues in social, career etc not just looks.

And who here is perfect ? Someone may look classically beautiful but have an awful/mean personality. Is that a 10? Someone may be average but smart and kind. A man may be short but financially successful and smart.

I don't know what number I have but I'm sure I'm not perfect in many ways other than body. I talk too much , I'm disorganized, I'm a bit insensitive etc etc etc. it's more who can you click with enough to put up with their imperfections and them with yours than to shoot for a looks only, largely irrelevant League.
BluEyeL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th November 2017, 2:08 AM   #34
Established Member
 
Cookiesandough's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: USA
Posts: 4,194
Quote:
Originally Posted by Imajerk17 View Post
I guess my overall thought on hypothetical threads is that they tend to overcomplicate things. I mean, I get that we as a board love to overthink things, but I'm not sure how much there is to see here.



The one place where Struggling Guys are told to do anything is really on forums such as these, when they ask for advice. (I suppose anyone who struggles with dating gets unsolicited advice which includes lowering attraction standards but I don't think it is gender specific .)

I'd never advise anyone to go for someone they aren't attracted to.

Anyway, I'm not that sure about the whole "leagues" concept anyway. I've seen plenty of couples that may seem mismatched in that regard, and very often, it is the woman who would be in the higher attraction "league". I've been attracted to women in supposedly lower leagues and not attracted to women in supposedly higher leagues. It's not like we are walking around with numbers on our forehead. When people connect, they connect.

You said you're not sure about leagues concept because you've seen people in "lower leagues" with people in "higher leagues". So you're not denying leagues may exist, you're just saying if they do you've seen people will date outside their league often.
There's this study I remember reading is that women are happier when married to less attractive men. Both people are happier and the marriage is less likely to dissolve.
Similar studies have been replicated numerous times. http://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?do...-3200.22.1.135
https://www.researchgate.net/publica..._and_behaviors

Basically, in the study that I am referring to, they took newlywed couples and had strangers rate the individuals (incidentally, the strangers rated them pretty similarly, lending to the idea that there is some 'objectivity' to attractiveness) and then they rated them for satisfaction. The women who were married to men viewed as less attractive were the happiest, followed by men with attractive wives(previous studies have concluded this), then people with similar attractiveness lvls.

Last edited by Cookiesandough; 8th November 2017 at 2:44 AM..
Cookiesandough is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th November 2017, 3:18 AM   #35
Established Member
 
CptInsano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: South of Lake Erie
Posts: 1,328
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cookiesandough View Post
You said you're not sure about leagues concept because you've seen people in "lower leagues" with people in "higher leagues". So you're not denying leagues may exist, you're just saying if they do you've seen people will date outside their league often.[...]
Which is the same as saying that leagues don't really exist. There are differences in physical appearance, of course. But the question is rather whether certain boundaries exist that form a category, and not as a single person's preference but based on an overall consensus, that makes a person "datable". That is a much harder case to make than just saying that people are more or less physically attractive, and that it affects decision-making while dating.
__________________
"You can't compare cars to women. Cars need to be loved." -Walter Röhrl
CptInsano is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th November 2017, 4:36 AM   #36
Established Member
 
Cookiesandough's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: USA
Posts: 4,194
Quote:
Originally Posted by CptInsano View Post
Which is the same as saying that leagues don't really exist. There are differences in physical appearance, of course. But the question is rather whether certain boundaries exist that form a category, and not as a single person's preference but based on an overall consensus, that makes a person "datable". That is a much harder case to make than just saying that people are more or less physically attractive, and that it affects decision-making while dating.
Maybe I misunderstand you, but I disagree that it's the same. I think if they did not exist ImaJerk and I wouldn't be able to see a distinction, and if ImaJerk and I can see a distinction, there's no reason to assume person's in that relationship can't also see it, but are choosing to date even noting the disparity. OP himself admits that's the situation he finds himself in his current relationship and I have experienced it as well.
Cookiesandough is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th November 2017, 5:05 AM   #37
Established Member
 
Cookiesandough's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: USA
Posts: 4,194
Quote:
Originally Posted by CptInsano View Post
Which is the same as saying that leagues don't really exist. There are differences in physical appearance, of course. But the question is rather whether certain boundaries exist that form a category, and not as a single person's preference but based on an overall consensus, that makes a person "datable". That is a much harder case to make than just saying that people are more or less physically attractive, and that it affects decision-making while dating.
Can you explain more what you mean by this? I don't think I understand. There have been studies by dating sites which give insight into what the consensus finds attractive and there's no ambiguity. The women in the most attractive group get 25x the messages than the least. Age, height, weight, income,education, have been shown to affect the amount of interest received. I don't like it any more than anyone else, but I think anyone who denies a consensus of dating desirability is just taking a flight from facts. It doesn't just apply to relationships but other institutions as well, like work.

Last edited by Cookiesandough; 8th November 2017 at 5:22 AM..
Cookiesandough is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th November 2017, 5:33 AM   #38
Established Member
 
salparadise's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Mid-Atlantic
Posts: 4,644
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cookiesandough View Post
Maybe I misunderstand you, but I disagree that it's the same. I think if they did not exist ImaJerk and I wouldn't be able to see a distinction, and if ImaJerk and I can see a distinction, there's no reason to assume person's in that relationship can't also see it, but are choosing to date even noting the disparity. OP himself admits that's the situation he finds himself in his current relationship and I have experienced it as well.
Of course they exist! They just don't have sharp edges or concise definitions. You can say you don't like it, or don't subscribe... but that doesn't change reality. You can say it's nothing more than bias, preference or perspective, but when those things drive the behavior of large numbers of people in a way that's observable and/or measurable, then it's actually a thing.

Just as people tend to socialize with others in their own socioeconomic class, people tend to date within a certain stratum based on perceived equity in the dating marketplace. Most people have a fair concept of their own equity and intuitively know that they're looking for someone of similar value. It's not just about looks; there are many factors. A person's station in life usually limits them to dating others in that group, while there are occasional outliers that manage to reach the next higher stratum. No one ever goes all the way from the bottom to the top. That only happens in fairy tales and disney movies, and in this wonderful scene where Eliza blunders the smalltalk.
salparadise is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th November 2017, 8:06 AM   #39
Established Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 5,922
Quote:
Originally Posted by salparadise View Post
Of course they exist! They just don't have sharp edges or concise definitions. You can say you don't like it, or don't subscribe... but that doesn't change reality. You can say it's nothing more than bias, preference or perspective, but when those things drive the behavior of large numbers of people in a way that's observable and/or measurable, then it's actually a thing.

Just as people tend to socialize with others in their own socioeconomic class, people tend to date within a certain stratum based on perceived equity in the dating marketplace. Most people have a fair concept of their own equity and intuitively know that they're looking for someone of similar value. It's not just about looks; there are many factors. A person's station in life usually limits them to dating others in that group, while there are occasional outliers that manage to reach the next higher stratum. No one ever goes all the way from the bottom to the top. That only happens in fairy tales and disney movies, and in this wonderful scene where Eliza blunders the smalltalk.
That video shows that people can marry above their league.
A person's rating is based on social position, wealth, age, career
and it's status, income, social skills, personality, looks.

Many of these factors can not be readily seen. So when we see
a match we can guess the attraction but not know for sure.

So what appears as a mismatch on the surface each one is
bringing enough of what the other person wants to the table
to make each other happy.
road is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th November 2017, 8:12 AM   #40
Established Member
 
CptInsano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: South of Lake Erie
Posts: 1,328
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cookiesandough View Post
Can you explain more what you mean by this? I don't think I understand. There have been studies by dating sites which give insight into what the consensus finds attractive and there's no ambiguity. The women in the most attractive group get 25x the messages than the least. Age, height, weight, income,education, have been shown to affect the amount of interest received. I don't like it any more than anyone else, but I think anyone who denies a consensus of dating desirability is just taking a flight from facts. It doesn't just apply to relationships but other institutions as well, like work.
What I'm saying is that looks, income, education, wealth, ethnicity and harder to define parameters such as personality form an overall bias. Some may weigh some factors more than others, and these factors can change over one's lifetime. Aside from youth, symmetrical features and clear skin, few physical attributes are considered attractive independent of one's cultural background. This leaves varying degrees of attractiveness, but it is not exactly clear what to go by in a specific case of asking somebody to stay within her or his league. I'm thinking about it more of a bias with several dimensions than leagues.
CptInsano is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th November 2017, 8:20 AM   #41
Established Member
 
Andy_K's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Exeter, UK
Posts: 1,718
I'm sure we'd all love to believe we're special snowflakes, and the trends and desires of society don't apply to us, but the majority of the time they do.

Short middle-aged unemployed bald guys rarely date supermodels. Chris Hemsworth lookalikes rarely date overweight middle aged women. For most people on the average to lower end of the desirability spectrum, you can wait until the end of time and you're not going to get that one in a million match.

It's also apparent in these threads that "I don't believe in leagues" is rather more often code for "I don't believe anybody is too good for me" than it is for "Nobody is too ugly or undesirable for me to consider dating". It works both ways. If you believe in standards, you believe in leagues.
Andy_K is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th November 2017, 8:21 AM   #42
Established Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: upstate New York
Posts: 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by salparadise View Post
No one ever goes all the way from the bottom to the top.
Larry Fortensky/Liz Taylor (yeah yeah - the exception that proofs the rule)
nospam99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th November 2017, 8:24 AM   #43
Established Member
 
Cookiesandough's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: USA
Posts: 4,194
Quote:
Originally Posted by CptInsano View Post
What I'm saying is that looks, income, education, wealth, ethnicity and harder to define parameters such as personality form an overall bias. Some may weigh some factors more than others, and these factors can change over one's lifetime. Aside from youth, symmetrical features and clear skin, few physical attributes are considered attractive independent of one's cultural background. This leaves varying degrees of attractiveness, but it is not exactly clear what to go by in a specific case of asking somebody to stay within her or his league. I'm thinking about it more of a bias with several dimensions than leagues.
Thank you for elaborating. I don't see it that way, but I respect your input.
OneLov likes this.

Last edited by Cookiesandough; 8th November 2017 at 8:32 AM..
Cookiesandough is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th November 2017, 8:58 AM   #44
Established Member
 
CptInsano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: South of Lake Erie
Posts: 1,328
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy_K View Post
I'm sure we'd all love to believe we're special snowflakes, and the trends and desires of society don't apply to us, but the majority of the time they do.
I agree with the special snowflake comment, and I would say that indeed most people fall somewhere in the middle. People who shop at Target, get their hair cut at a discount salon, and exercise moderately. They simply look very similar and do similar things. I also work in a large office complex with about 10,000 other people. Very few of them stand out strongly until you get to know them better.
CptInsano is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th November 2017, 10:41 AM   #45
Established Member
 
OneLov's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: USA
Posts: 725
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoodOnPaper View Post
So often it seems that struggling guys are accused of only being attracted to superhot women and so are told to "stay in their league" in order to be more successful. I can't help but wonder if this can really lead to any kind of relationship, whether casual or committed, that is mutually exciting for both partners. After all, if the guy in his own mind is basically pre-settling before he even talks to a woman, can you really expect him become satisfied - at least to the point where he doesn't consider himself to be "struggling" anymore?

I never intentionally dated "up" or "down" based on physical looks, but it did turn out that with the few GFs I had when I was single, I was always the one who was more interested and it always resulted in them monkeybranching to other guys. With my wife, she was the one who was more interested - while in many ways we have a good life, neither situation is ideal.
Of course there can be mutually satisfying relationships because most people, men and women, have an innate sense of their "league." At least, that is what science tells us.

https://www.livescience.com/2307-rom...beautiful.html

"[s]tudy results...suggest people who lack looks place more stock in non-physical features, such as sense of humor, than in physical beauty."

"Guys, however, are less concerned with their own looks when deciding whom to date, the findings suggest. So while a man might have no qualms about going after someone much better looking than he is, a woman will tend more to choose partners with compatible looks."

Unfortunately, looks matter more to the folks who are blessed with good features. So, I believe their is an inherent understanding of where we objectively rank among others. However, men are less likely to accept their "league." This can be a positive thing: It inspires a competitive drive to try and do whatever one can to "date up."

However, I do find there is this propagated myth of "looks are not as important to women," and men, in general, buy into it. Not sure if it is culturally ingrained denial or what, but even some women tend to downplay the importance of looks.

https://www.livescience.com/58607-me...rsonality.html

"The results showed that as long as a man was considered attractive or moderately attractive, both mothers and daughters would pick the guy who had the most desirable personality traits. But when an unattractive male was paired with the most highly desirable personality profile, neither daughters nor mothers rated him as favorably as a potential romantic partner, compared with better-looking men with less desirable personalities."
__________________
My cat doesn't like music composed in E minor; it gives her the E-B-G-E's.
OneLov is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

 

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Ever been told "You're too attractive to date me"?? 67Chevelle General Relationship Discussion 6 1st January 2016 1:11 AM
Have a date on Friday. She texted me and told me she has "a lot of questions" Mark1 Dating 15 30th January 2014 12:47 PM
"Frat boy" "Jock" "Sports dude" "Players" "Dark Triad" "Cool" its a lifestyle Dating 14 26th February 2013 7:10 PM
"The End of Courtship" - The New York Times affirms "hang out" is the new "date". Mrlonelyone Dating 73 26th January 2013 11:30 AM
When somebody says "lower your standards" or "stay in your league" AD1980 Dating 257 9th November 2010 6:23 PM

 

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 8:10 PM.

Please note: The suggestions and advice offered on this web site are opinions only and are not to be used in the place of professional psychological counseling or medical advice. If you or someone close to you is currently in crisis or in an emergency situation, contact your local law enforcement agency or emergency number.


Copyright © 1997-2013 LoveShack.org. All Rights Reserved.