knaveman Posted July 20, 2007 Posted July 20, 2007 Any woman that doesn't run from my presence is in my league. If not, alcohol lowers league standings to a reasonable level.
Author Nomad Posted July 20, 2007 Author Posted July 20, 2007 My question mainly arises from seeing couples in which neither is good-looking, or they're both fat, or something like that. Don't those fat people each wish they could be out with someone thinner? Don't those ugly people each wish they could be with someone better-looking? And if so, how are they happy in their current relationship?
underpants Posted July 20, 2007 Posted July 20, 2007 I don't know when you went to college, but when I was there people didn't go out. They hooked up or were joined at the hip from day 1. But point is made, we didn't get our balls in those girl's mouths too often, but it sure as hell was fun to say. That is a very funny Kid Rock song. That being said, do you really want to go down KR's path? Probably not so much. I guess that is why I drop a little pigeon pooh on you fellows here and there. It must be hard to fore go the immediate for the long term or to sabotage something for a moment of rock star glory. I respect alot of peeps here, but sometimes it is hard to read.
oppath Posted July 20, 2007 Posted July 20, 2007 Oh... I've been flagged! I guess two over 21 improv performances this week have left my mind in the gutter. I need to realize I'm not still on stage. Put yourself in the perspective of a bunch of drunk 20 year old college kids. The statement actually rejects the notion of leagues, albeit admittedly far too crassly. Restraint. But Kid Rock? He's a poseur. My roots are one block off 8 mile. KR grew up in Romeo. That's Podunk.
knaveman Posted July 20, 2007 Posted July 20, 2007 Seriously, any woman that will sit an talk to you beyond "hello" is in your league. Leagues are only in our minds if we choose to place that much importance on looks. I was always told that any man that doesn't make a girl vomit has a chance with her. I don't know if that's true but you get the point I hope.
jcster Posted July 20, 2007 Posted July 20, 2007 Don't those fat people each wish they could be out with someone thinner? Don't those ugly people each wish they could be with someone better-looking? And if so, how are they happy in their current relationship?Fat...ugly...it's all in your head. Seriously. Fat here is not fat somewhere else. Ugly here isn't ugly elsewhere. Fat now wasn't fat 100 years ago. Do you get what I'm saying? There's no universal physical attractiveness meter. It's entirely subjective. There are currently women in other cultures who are practically force fed food to make them as fat as possible and therefore beautiful in their culture, and at the same time, in the same culture, there are guys lusting after the skinny ones. I think your question makes some major generalizations about utterly subjective perceptions.
Author Nomad Posted July 20, 2007 Author Posted July 20, 2007 Fat...ugly...it's all in your head. Seriously. Fat here is not fat somewhere else. Ugly here isn't ugly elsewhere. Fat now wasn't fat 100 years ago. Do you get what I'm saying? There's no universal physical attractiveness meter. It's entirely subjective. There are currently women in other cultures who are practically force fed food to make them as fat as possible and therefore beautiful in their culture, and at the same time, in the same culture, there are guys lusting after the skinny ones. I think your question makes some major generalizations about utterly subjective perceptions. Jcster, I must respectfully disagree with you here: 1. While there is of course wide variation in personal tastes, standards of FACIAL beauty (especially features like symmetry) are universally lauded as attractive. Now, before anyone starts screaming about how this isn't true, and beauty comes from the heart, etc, please take the time to actually research this point, as I have. Run a Google search on standards of attractiveness, and see the anthropological work that's been done in this area. 2. Everyone on this thread saying that looks and body type don't matter seem to be under the impression that it SHOULDN'T be the case that these things matter, but it doesn't mean they DON'T matter. I pose a question: how many ugly people do you usually see with a hot partner? How many fat people do you usually see with a thin partner? I have no doubt that it OCCASIONALLY happens, but I'm asking which is the more common pairing: ugly/ugly, or ugly/attractive, and fat/fat or fat/thin? If these things don't matter, than pairing should be near-random, and there'd be little or no correlation between partners' looks and/or body type.
electric_sheep Posted July 20, 2007 Posted July 20, 2007 I think it's naive to say "leagues" don't exist at all. The "league" is about a lot more than just looks though... personality, looks, money, humor, intelligence, ect... Plenty of guys who are 4's or 5's in the looks department are dating girls who are 7's or 8's, because they have power, money, or influence. Or maybe just a great sense of humor. Who knows. Of course, there are always exceptions to the rule, too. I have a very attractive and intelligent friend who is dating this incredibly dull and average looking guy. None of us can figure it out. He doesn't make any money either.
Trialbyfire Posted July 20, 2007 Posted July 20, 2007 Such extreme terms. Ugly and fat. Most people fall into the millions of categories in between. No doubt people don't date others they find repulsive to look at, but then, most people don't fall into the repulsive looking category.
electric_sheep Posted July 20, 2007 Posted July 20, 2007 Leagues exist only by mutual agreement. Who decides who the 9's are? Society. Go to any news stand and pick up a fashion magazine. It is mostly arbitrary, you have no argument with me there, but what's considered attractive is like anything else in the marketplace... it is controlled by the laws of supply and demand. We as a society have decided Natalie Portman is "hotter" than Rosie O'Donnel. Natalie Portman is in higher demand by young bucks. "Leagues" are fiction - they only hold water in tiny pockets of homogeneously thinking people and only hold sway over those who subscribe to the view. Of course, but those "tiny pockets" you mention turn out, in fact, to be most of society. For better or for worse.
bish Posted July 20, 2007 Posted July 20, 2007 Guys (or gals): do you ever find yourself wishing you were capable of getting hotter women (or men)? How can one be happy in their "league" without always wishing they could have someone more attractive? Just like the saying goes....marry someone ugly....who the hell else wants them, and if they do cheat on you or leave you for someone else, you won't care.
Lizzie60 Posted July 20, 2007 Posted July 20, 2007 there is some truth to that statement... 'League' is only a term that encompass many things.. like chemistry, standards... etc. It's not uncommon to see a drop dead gorgeous man or woman with a not-so attractive partner. But in general, beautiful people are with beautiful people... unless they are millionnaires LOL Money does give a certain charm... (Trump for example)
Author Nomad Posted July 20, 2007 Author Posted July 20, 2007 Society. Go to any news stand and pick up a fashion magazine. It is mostly arbitrary, you have no argument with me there, but what's considered attractive is like anything else in the marketplace... it is controlled by the laws of supply and demand. We as a society have decided Natalie Portman is "hotter" than Rosie O'Donnel. Natalie Portman is in higher demand by young bucks. Not true; please see my previous post. It's in fact quite likely that the preference for certain types of looks are an evolutionary adaptation. While preferences for certain BODY types admittedly vary widely (as do cultural idiosyncrasies like foot binding, body modification, etc), standards of facial beauty are quite constant across different times and cultures.
Trialbyfire Posted July 20, 2007 Posted July 20, 2007 standards of facial beauty are quite constant across different times and cultures. This is incorrect. If it were the case, you would find more cross-cultural relationships.
Author Nomad Posted July 20, 2007 Author Posted July 20, 2007 This is incorrect. If it were the case, you would find more cross-cultural relationships. Begging your pardon, but please do some research on this before you denounce it. As I said, half an hour on Google will introduce you to the experiments and anthropological fieldwork that bear out my claim of cross-cultural standards of beauty. BTW, there are PLENTY of cross-cultural relationships. Not as many an intra-cultural relationships, of course, but this isn't surprising given that: 1. For most of history, geographical boundaries presented serious obstacles to inter-cultural relationships, and for many people still do, and 2. The universal tendency of people to associate with those most like themselves, and "clump" into groups. You're much more likely to associate with someone living close by to you.
Trialbyfire Posted July 20, 2007 Posted July 20, 2007 Begging your pardon, but please do some research on this before you denounce it. As I said, half an hour on Google will introduce you to the experiments and anthropological fieldwork that bear out my claim of cross-cultural standards of beauty. BTW, there are PLENTY of cross-cultural relationships. Not as many an intra-cultural relationships, of course, but this isn't surprising given that: 1. For most of history, geographical boundaries presented serious obstacles to inter-cultural relationships, and for many people still do, and 2. The universal tendency of people to associate with those most like themselves, and "clump" into groups. You're much more likely to associate with someone living close by to you. It sounds like you live in a predominantly one culture environment. I don't. The city I live in is an extreme mix of many cultures where people comingle socially but only a very small percentage intermate. Many are second generation immigrants.
jcster Posted July 20, 2007 Posted July 20, 2007 Society. Go to any news stand and pick up a fashion magazine. It is mostly arbitrary, you have no argument with me there, but what's considered attractive is like anything else in the marketplace... it is controlled by the laws of supply and demand. We as a society have decided Natalie Portman is "hotter" than Rosie O'Donnel. Natalie Portman is in higher demand by young bucks. Electric_sheep, usually I find myself pretty delighted with most of your comments. I have to say, though, that I find this post pretty alarming. First off, which segment of society are we talking about? Do you truly think that all Americans agree with Vogue or USA Today? Or is it all of Western Civilization? All 25-35 year old males? Which ethnicity? Second of all, using a fashion magazine as an example is a big mistake. Fashion is a business - the models are commodities (and quite airbrushed to boot). Fashion CREATES demand, it doesn't follow it. Fashion DEFINES the style, it doesn't respond to it. What you are relying on to inform you of who you should find attractive has nothing to do with sex and everything to do with clothing and fantasy. They are selling you a dream, not a reality - and I find it incredibly sad that so many people have allowed themselves to becomes so disconnected from their own personal preferences and have bought into this crud. The concept of "leagues" is a classist concept. It seeks to define a hierarchy of desirability based upon set criteria. It's arbitrary, artificial, often racist, and should have died out with the aristocracy. People who adhere to the concept want defintive proof of their own superiority (or inferiority) based upon standardized criteria so that they don't need to spend any time contemplating their own souls.
Trialbyfire Posted July 20, 2007 Posted July 20, 2007 The concept of "leagues" is a classist concept. It seeks to define a hierarchy of desirability based upon set criteria. It's arbitrary, artificial, often racist, and should have died out with the aristocracy. People who adhere to the concept want defintive proof of their own superiority (or inferiority) based upon standardized criteria so that they don't need to spend any time contemplating their own souls. In a nutshell, lacking self-esteem and an overwhelming need to shove a square peg into a round hole...
electric_sheep Posted July 20, 2007 Posted July 20, 2007 Electric_sheep, usually I find myself pretty delighted with most of your comments. I have to say, though, that I find this post pretty alarming. First off, which segment of society are we talking about? Do you truly think that all Americans agree with Vogue or USA Today? Or is it all of Western Civilization? All 25-35 year old males? Which ethnicity? Second of all, using a fashion magazine as an example is a big mistake. Fashion is a business - the models are commodities (and quite airbrushed to boot). Fashion CREATES demand, it doesn't follow it. Fashion DEFINES the style, it doesn't respond to it. What you are relying on to inform you of who you should find attractive has nothing to do with sex and everything to do with clothing and fantasy. They are selling you a dream, not a reality - and I find it incredibly sad that so many people have allowed themselves to becomes so disconnected from their own personal preferences and have bought into this crud. Well, I don't think it's a good thing either, but that doesn't mean I'm not going to recognize there is a certain reality to it. All I'm saying is, gather a group of a random 1000 college guys together in a sports stadium (I don't care what race they are), tell them all they can either go home with Natalie Portman or Rosie O'Donnel (make it a closed/private vote, if you wish), and I'd bet you one months salary who they will overwhelmingly pick. How do I know this? Because, whether we want to admit it or not, the "standard" by which looks are "rated" is pretty easy for anyone to pick up. Especially in an example like this. It may suck, but I don't think that makes it any less true. You guys can pretend no such thing exists in society, but I think you are just being delusional. I also think you give people/society more credit than I do. If it didn't exist at all, why is it news anchors and soap opera stars all have a certain "look"?
playabum17 Posted July 20, 2007 Posted July 20, 2007 Well, I don't think it's a good thing either, but that doesn't mean I'm not going to recognize there is a certain reality to it. All I'm saying is, gather a group of a random 1000 college guys together in a sports stadium (I don't care what race they are), tell them all they can either go home with Natalie Portman or Rosie O'Donnel (make it a closed/private vote, if you wish), and I'd bet you one months salary who they will overwhelmingly pick. How do I know this? Because, whether we want to admit it or not, the "standard" by which looks are "rated" is pretty easy for anyone to pick up. Especially in an example like this. It may suck, but I don't think that makes it any less true. You guys can pretend no such thing exists in society, but I think you are just being delusional. I also think you give people/society more credit than I do. If it didn't exist at all, why is it news anchors and soap opera stars all have a certain "look"? They'd pick Natalie cause they'd be afraid Rosie would open her mouth, she never shuts up and she's annoying as hell. Oh, and the fact that she's a LESBIAN*!!! EDIT: *Not that there's anything wrong with that
IpAncA Posted July 20, 2007 Posted July 20, 2007 there is some truth to that statement... 'League' is only a term that encompass many things.. like chemistry, standards... etc. It's not uncommon to see a drop dead gorgeous man or woman with a not-so attractive partner. But in general, beautiful people are with beautiful people... unless they are millionnaires LOL Money does give a certain charm... (Trump for example) Yeah I agree. From what I've seen, the couple usually match in terms of looks, standards, etc... Not to say that people don't mix these because it does happen. I don't like the term "league" because you should be able to be with anyone.
crazy_grl Posted July 20, 2007 Posted July 20, 2007 All I'm saying is, gather a group of a random 1000 college guys together in a sports stadium (I don't care what race they are), tell them all they can either go home with Natalie Portman or Rosie O'Donnel (make it a closed/private vote, if you wish), and I'd bet you one months salary who they will overwhelmingly pick. And yet some would still pick Rosie O'Donnel. I'm willing to bet there's at least one few guy out there who thinks she's the sexiest, most desirable woman he's ever seen, and he wishes she weren't a lesbian. Just because the majority of people would classify a person as "ugly" doesn't mean that person's SO wakes up every day wishing they weren't dating such an ugly person. There's a guy I know who is in every way the most gorgeous guy I've ever seen. My friend thinks he's ugly and too skinny. It's a matter of perspective.
Author Nomad Posted July 21, 2007 Author Posted July 21, 2007 Ok...there are a lot of different opinions here, and I appreciate everybody's insight. I am going to throw out a statement, and see who agrees with it: ON AVERAGE, attractive people date other attractive people, unattractive people date other unattractive people, fat people date other fat people, etc. Now, if this is agreed upon, that opens up the question of WHY? There are 2 possibilities: 1. The unattractives are MAXIMALLY attracted to other unattractives, fat people are maximally attracted to other fat people, etc, so there's no problem: nobody's "settling." Or 2. The unattractives and fat people dating each other are "taking what they can get," and are in fact NOT MAXIMALLY attracted to their partners. If 2 is the case, it raises the question of HOW they can be happy with partners they're SETTLING FOR?
Lizzie60 Posted July 21, 2007 Posted July 21, 2007 you're persistent.. I have no clue really... I am attractive and have a killer body... I will speculate though that unattractive go with unattractive but they are not really 'settling' for less... they fall in love with this other person. I don't think it even bothers them to see much much attractive people around them... they already are in love with someone. For example, if you see a top model or any other celebrity in front of you, does it bother you that you can't have this person, when you already are in love with a girl?
playabum17 Posted July 21, 2007 Posted July 21, 2007 Ok...there are a lot of different opinions here, and I appreciate everybody's insight. I am going to throw out a statement, and see who agrees with it: ON AVERAGE, attractive people date other attractive people, unattractive people date other unattractive people, fat people date other fat people, etc. Now, if this is agreed upon, that opens up the question of WHY? There are 2 possibilities: 1. The unattractives are MAXIMALLY attracted to other unattractives, fat people are maximally attracted to other fat people, etc, so there's no problem: nobody's "settling." Or 2. The unattractives and fat people dating each other are "taking what they can get," and are in fact NOT MAXIMALLY attracted to their partners. If 2 is the case, it raises the question of HOW they can be happy with partners they're SETTLING FOR ? This theme I see on here is just amazing to me so only thin, attractive people are worthy or capable of finding love or being attractive to another person? That is the most offensive, ignorant thing I have heard of, ever heard beauty is in the eye of the beholder? Some people are actually able to see how lovely a person is inside and they become more attractive to them because of that. You cannot break down love and relationships into categories like you are trying to do, it happens or it doesn't whether the person be thin or larger, stunning or less so. I'm not sure what your study group includes, but I've seen plenty of people together that might be consider 'opposites' and they love each other despite of it...or maybe because of it.
Recommended Posts