depplover_1980 Posted January 24, 2011 Posted January 24, 2011 It's a computer generated Poser image. But thank you anyway depplover. I agree but I think they tend to end up with someone who is slightly above their level. Not miles. I knew this of course, but still hot. I really like the black veining under the eye, bit of a manga feel to it. If you designed this yourself you are really good.
Knittress Posted January 24, 2011 Posted January 24, 2011 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. Meh. Well, you notice what Jazzari is talking about is mostly social appeal - and I think that's more relevant than looks alone. Especially for women evaluating men.
SteveC80 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? relationships are allot more superficial and animalistic then people want to admit of course to sustain it u need more then that but the begining stages of attraction are superficial and animalistic
SteveC80 Posted January 24, 2011 Posted January 24, 2011 Meh. Well, you notice what Jazzari is talking about is mostly social appeal - and I think that's more relevant than looks alone. Especially for women evaluating men. define what you mean by social appeal
donnamaybe Posted January 24, 2011 Posted January 24, 2011 Who said anything about 'attractive' relating solely to physical appearance? Should I have used a different word, like 'appealing'? I'm pretty certain, especially when someone is termed not "bangable" because of their lack of attractiveness, it is related to physical appearance. I honestly don't see what the fuss is about. Some people are rated higher than others in terms of attractiveness. So what? 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.
donnamaybe Posted January 24, 2011 Posted January 24, 2011 relationships are allot more superficial and animalistic then people want to admit of course to sustain it u need more then that but the begining stages of attraction are superficial and animalisticSure, at the beginning, but it wouldn't take me long to drop kick the hottest guy if he opened his mouth and BS fell out.
Knittress Posted January 24, 2011 Posted January 24, 2011 I'm pretty certain, especially when someone is termed not "bangable" because of their lack of attractiveness, it is related to physical appearance. Well, since you put it so NICELY, I'll admit that I'm predominantly attracted to brains. Then other things like eyes, interactional style, hell - even gender, come into play. Really, just because people aren't the same as you...
donnamaybe Posted January 24, 2011 Posted January 24, 2011 Wow. SOMEONE got up on the wrong side of the bed this morning.
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. Just to restate. There are many things people use to judge league. Just for kicks and giggles, I will add that judgeing a person's league is not limited to the opposite sex. Many women will size up the competition before scoping out the men.
donnamaybe Posted January 24, 2011 Posted January 24, 2011 Yeah, for me it's definitely personality first. Not that I'd be interested in Quasimodo, but a guy has to have a good personality.
donnamaybe Posted January 24, 2011 Posted January 24, 2011 Why wouldn't you be interested in Quasi? 'Cause I'd have to stoop over and bend sideways for a kiss, and I have a bad back.
donnamaybe Posted January 24, 2011 Posted January 24, 2011 Obviously, I was kidding with that last post. Yes, of course looks play somewhat of a role for me; for everyone. But I've found myself attracted to guys who would be instantly thought of as unattractive simply because their personality was so awesome their looks were of very minor significance.
Jazzari Posted January 24, 2011 Posted January 24, 2011 'Cause I'd have to stoop over and bend sideways for a kiss, and I have a bad back. Cute. So if he were taller but still an ugly hunchback, you would date him?
donnamaybe Posted January 24, 2011 Posted January 24, 2011 Cute. So if he were taller but still an ugly hunchback, you would date him? But does he have good teeth? I love kissing, and I refuse to kiss someone with yuck in their mouth.
Jazzari Posted January 24, 2011 Posted January 24, 2011 Obviously, I was kidding with that last post. Yes, of course looks play somewhat of a role for me; for everyone. But I've found myself attracted to guys who would be instantly thought of as unattractive simply because their personality was so awesome their looks were of very minor significance. Dammit. I post too slow. You answered me. Thanks. I think our disagreement is based on our diffrence in definition. I don't define league as based solely on looks.
donnamaybe Posted January 24, 2011 Posted January 24, 2011 Dammit. I post too slow. You answered me. Thanks. I think our disagreement is based on our diffrence in definition. I don't define league as based solely on looks. Actually, you post too fast (or I post too slow) 'cause I tried to edit my last post but you beat me to it!
donnamaybe Posted January 24, 2011 Posted January 24, 2011 The thing about this whole "leagues" business is people usually use the term in SUCH a superficial way. There is SO much to a person in their entirety to be able to place them in a position above or below someone else, and the term is usually used when people are looking for new relationships. "Oh, I could never approach her and ask her out 'cause she's outta my league." How the hell would someone know that just based on looks alone? Or the car they drive? Or the house they live in? You can be the best looking guy driving the most expensive car into the garage of the nicest house in town, but you might also be a complete jackass.
Jazzari Posted January 24, 2011 Posted January 24, 2011 Going by the superficial category of looks... Quasimodo will never date Angelina Jolie. She is out of his league. Sure, he can give it his best shot but only if he loves rejection. (Remember the beautiful Esmeralda ends up with the handsome Phoebus - not the Hunchback)
Star Gazer Posted January 25, 2011 Posted January 25, 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. You know, I agree with this. It's usually someone who feels not worthy, who's saying leagues exist. It's rare you see someone in the so-called upper league who thinks highly of themselves looking down on someone and saying, "They're beneath me." There aren't many Blane McDonnagh's in the world.
Knittress Posted January 25, 2011 Posted January 25, 2011 You know, I agree with this. It's usually someone who feels not worthy, who's saying leagues exist. It's rare you see someone in the so-called upper league who thinks highly of themselves looking down on someone and saying, "They're beneath me." There aren't many Blane McDonnagh's in the world. You sure you're being totally honest with yourself? I'm just saying that because I used to think of many people as being 'creepy' or 'gross' (or maybe I just wasn't all-that-sexual) before realizing that there was nothing wrong with any of those people. I was just unfairly passing my above-average expectations upon the average. I think it's nicer, actually, to realize that.
Emilia Posted January 25, 2011 Posted January 25, 2011 You know, I agree with this. It's usually someone who feels not worthy, who's saying leagues exist. It's rare you see someone in the so-called upper league who thinks highly of themselves looking down on someone and saying, "They're beneath me." There aren't many Blane McDonnagh's in the world. Leagues are a reality and people will rate others accordingly. Someone mentioned attractiveness but it is only one facet as a couple of posters pointed it out. Attraction is never solely based on looks. Whether you like it or not you are judged every day by the opposite sex - or your own - based on looks, social status, confidence, upbringing, age, etc. When someone turns you down in their mind because they think they can 'do better' it's because you are not in the league they aspire to. It happens to all of us. Northern Sky by the way is a poster who sometimes rates men according to leagues she aspires to (in terms of intellect, looks, etc). Self-awareness is key. We all do this.
Eeyore79 Posted January 25, 2011 Posted January 25, 2011 When someone turns you down in their mind because they think they can 'do better' it's because you are not in the league they aspire to. Never a truer word was spoken. People know roughly what type of person they aspire to be with, or what type of person they feel they deserve based on the qualities they have to offer. They want someone who they regard as roughly equal or better than themselves. If you don't match up to their self-image they'll turn you down because they can "do better". They might even date you for a while until they get to know you well enough to decide they can "do better" - you, of course, were probably perfectly happy because they fulfilled your criteria by being equal/better than you, and will therefore be devastated by being dumped.
Cracker Jack Posted January 25, 2011 Posted January 25, 2011 I'm not gonna lie, I usually try to get over the "she's outta my league" mentality, since I basically have that opinion towards 90% of the women I see on a daily basis. I'm in, like, class 0, or whatever the lowest league level is, lol. But I saw a very beautiful woman today, and while she stared at me for a moment, I looked at her and realized I wouldn't have a chance in hell with someone as beautiful as her. This usually puts me into a position where I'm too petrified to ask a woman out. Doesn't feel good, man. That's life, tho, and quite understandable. It would really be nice to feel desirable in a woman's eyes. It's...just something I have yet to experience.
Content Posted January 25, 2011 Posted January 25, 2011 (edited) You sure you're being totally honest with yourself? I'm just saying that because I used to think of many people as being 'creepy' or 'gross' (or maybe I just wasn't all-that-sexual) before realizing that there was nothing wrong with any of those people. I was just unfairly passing my above-average expectations upon the average. I think it's nicer, actually, to realize that. i love how men get called creepy just for being ugly i like the honesty though it shows women are just as harsh as men when it comes to judging looks Edited January 25, 2011 by Content
Recommended Posts