PJKino Posted January 24, 2011 Posted January 24, 2011 (edited) Like its common sense to know whos in your league as if people have numbers on their forehead with their level of attraciveness Do people walk around thinking "that persons better looking then me" "this ones a a little less good looking then me" "BAM theyres my league were both equally good looking or average looking" How do some of you gauge whos near your level of attractiveness? Edited January 24, 2011 by PJKino
bsilmb Posted January 24, 2011 Posted January 24, 2011 leagues are actually a bull**** thing invented that insecure people use to make excuses not to date or ask out someone. everybody has a shot., and if someone thinks you are in different "leagues", tell then to go **** thenselves for thinking they're better than you. sorry for the rant haha
depplover_1980 Posted January 24, 2011 Posted January 24, 2011 As my man says 'the only people you're too good for are the ones who think they're too good for you'. I like it, this can be applied to leagues!
donnamaybe Posted January 24, 2011 Posted January 24, 2011 I find the whole notion of "leagues" rather pathetic myself. First of all, I am attracted to who I am attracted to. There's no way I could analytically assess a person "worthy" of my attraction based on how I look. Additionally, how is your "league" going to help you when you are dying? We'll all be in the same boat then. Time for those who think they are in some superior "league" to come on down here with the rest of us common folk.
GoodOnPaper Posted January 24, 2011 Posted January 24, 2011 I think it's hard to intentionally analyze like the OP's describing. For me, it was more of a first-impression gut reaction to a couple of questions swimming around in my head: -- Do I (or could I) think that she is cute? -- How much competition would I likely have? Of course, finding the high-cuteness, low-competition combination is like looking for a needle in a haystack, so I don't necessarily endorse that this approach is the most healthy . . .
Jazzari Posted January 24, 2011 Posted January 24, 2011 Leagues are a fact. You might not like them, but it is what it is. I define "out of my league" as someone who is miles above me in some category that is important to them. League can be based on social status, looks, intelligence, whatever. Most usually its a combination of factors. A supermodel who feels that looks are very imporant is out of my league. An intellectual who want someone to discuss quantum mechanics is out of my league. A wealthy person who is looking for blue blood is out of my league.
northern_sky Posted January 24, 2011 Posted January 24, 2011 It seems like the people who talk about leagues are usually men, and often insecure, not especially attractive men at that. Not sure why this is. The whole concept makes me want to puke.
donnamaybe Posted January 24, 2011 Posted January 24, 2011 A supermodel who feels that looks are very imporant is out of my league.And if you're intelligent and she's dumber than a box of rocks, you are out of her league. See how there's just no point to it all?
Jazzari Posted January 24, 2011 Posted January 24, 2011 And if you're intelligent and she's dumber than a box of rocks, you are out of her league. See how there's just no point to it all?Not at all. Intelligence usually equates to wealth which dumb girls are often attracted to. But even if that was the case, so what? That doesn't negate the fact that you aren't suited for each other. Leagues are just an easy way to say that. I honestly don't see what the fuss is about. Some people are rated higher than others in terms of attractiveness. So what?
donnamaybe Posted January 24, 2011 Posted January 24, 2011 Some people are rated higher than others in terms of attractiveness. So what?And, in your opinion, that means they're better than you? Oh, wow. Go ahead, I suppose, and sit in the little pigeonhole people want to put you in. I ain't buyin' it!
donnamaybe Posted January 24, 2011 Posted January 24, 2011 Not at all. Intelligence usually equates to wealth which dumb girls are often attracted to. And this, by the way, made absolutely NO sense.
Knittress Posted January 24, 2011 Posted January 24, 2011 And, in your opinion, that means they're better than you? Oh, wow. Go ahead, I suppose, and sit in the little pigeonhole people want to put you in. I ain't buyin' it! We're talking about mate-selection here, not a person's inherent worth as a human being. There's a difference.
tigressA Posted January 24, 2011 Posted January 24, 2011 Someone else had said in another thread that someone in your league is someone you like, who likes you. This is what I think.
donnamaybe Posted January 24, 2011 Posted January 24, 2011 We're talking about mate-selection here, not a person's inherent worth as a human being. There's a difference.And I met a guy who would fall below me on a looks "rating scale," but his personality was SUCH a turn on! So on your "mate-selection scale," would he be above me or below me? I just think it is SO shallow to label someone in a certain league merely due to the arrangement of their facial features.
Knittress Posted January 24, 2011 Posted January 24, 2011 And I met a guy who would fall below me on a looks "rating scale," but his personality was SUCH a turn on! So on your "mate-selection scale," would he be above me or below me? I just think it is SO shallow to label someone in a certain league merely due to the arrangement of their facial features. Why do you care about MY mate-selection scale? And why would I spend a significant amount of time evaluating either of you as a partner (people I'm not interesting in dating)? How would ~I~ know (or care) what you value in a life-partner? Sheesh.
donnamaybe Posted January 24, 2011 Posted January 24, 2011 Why do you care about MY mate-selection scale? And why would I spend a significant amount of time evaluating either of you as a partner (people I'm not interesting in dating)? How would ~I~ know (or care) what you value in a life-partner? Sheesh. Then why are you on this thread?
Knittress Posted January 24, 2011 Posted January 24, 2011 Then why are you on this thread? I thought you were being unrealistic. Your attitude seemed to indicate that everyone is equally attractive to everyone else. Worthy human beings? Yes. Bangable? No. Just because I can't be bothered to hash this out in a message board doesn't mean it's not true. Leagues are more of a social consensus than an arbitrary number or any one person's opinion, anyway.
Jazzari Posted January 24, 2011 Posted January 24, 2011 And, in your opinion, that means they're better than you? Oh, wow. Go ahead, I suppose, and sit in the little pigeonhole people want to put you in. I ain't buyin' it! We're talking about mate-selection here, not a person's inherent worth as a human being. There's a difference.Exactly Knittress. Yes, some people are more attractive than I am. Or some people may be better in some category than I am. That doesn't necessarily make them a better all around person. Thought obviously there are some that are. Accurately assessing someone's attributes is not a bad thing. Being discriminating about who you choose to date is something I think everyone does. Whether you use the label or not, you judge people and act accordingly. Most (not all) choose to be with someone on their own level. Either conciously or subconsiously.
depplover_1980 Posted January 24, 2011 Posted January 24, 2011 Anyway Jazz you are major league based on you avatar!!
Knittress Posted January 24, 2011 Posted January 24, 2011 Anyway Jazz you are major league based on you avatar!! ? Looks computer-generated to me...
SteveC80 Posted January 24, 2011 Posted January 24, 2011 Most (not all) choose to be with someone on their own level. Either conciously or subconsiously. women tend to go for men who are better catches then themselves
Jazzari Posted January 24, 2011 Posted January 24, 2011 Anyway Jazz you are major league based on you avatar!! ? Looks computer-generated to me...It's a computer generated Poser image. But thank you anyway depplover. women tend to go for men who are better catches then themselvesI agree but I think they tend to end up with someone who is slightly above their level. Not miles.
donnamaybe Posted January 24, 2011 Posted January 24, 2011 If we're talking purely about a person's looks, of course there are better looking people and not so good looking people, and even that is subjective. But is that REALLY all you people use as a yardstick to measure a person's compatibility with you for a relationship?
Knittress Posted January 24, 2011 Posted January 24, 2011 If we're talking purely about a person's looks, of course there are better looking people and not so good looking people, and even that is subjective. But is that REALLY all you people use as a yardstick to measure a person's compatibility with you for a relationship? Who said anything about 'attractive' relating solely to physical appearance? Should I have used a different word, like 'appealing'?
tigressA Posted January 24, 2011 Posted January 24, 2011 Who said anything about 'attractive' solely relating to physical appearance? Well, the OP mentions only looks with regard to attractiveness, and it's been said that "leagues" usually are applied only in terms of looks.
Recommended Posts