Author ThaWholigan Posted May 24, 2012 Author Posted May 24, 2012 Yep, that's pretty much all there is to it. I don't understand why this thread devolved into the same tired arguments about either gender or weight. The simple point of the OP: People are attracted to the people they're attracted to, they date the people they're willing to date, and those choices are always going to be subjective and individual --- not objective and systemized and assigned. We are not assigned mates, we choose them, and as such, we choose subjectively. People who whine that they can't get girls/guys in the league they perceive themselves to be in are missing the point of how life works, basically. I'm glad my POV wasn't lost on anyone. I can see why people think it's make-believe, but that's only because the way they view reality is very different - almost bleak at times .
Mme. Chaucer Posted May 24, 2012 Posted May 24, 2012 Quote: Originally Posted by somedude81 Nobody should date anyone they don't want to. I was annoyed that it was being suggested. You suggest it all the time when you feel indignant that girls who don't want to date you don't "give you a chance." See? 1
Els Posted May 24, 2012 Posted May 24, 2012 I agree with you for the most part, OP (as usual ), but I think there is a reason general 'leagues' exist. Simply, people often find themselves most compatible with others who have similar mindsets/priorities. They gravitate towards each other, and those relationships are more likely to last. This is not true all the time, but it seems to be a general principle that governs friendship formation and relationships. I have never seen a successful relationship in which both parties were vastly different in terms of mindset. In that case, it would stand to reason that people who put a high priority on surface traits such as physical appearance, would gravitate towards other people who do likewise, and by virtue of this, if they are likely to have any romantic success, they would work on improving those traits themselves to improve their desirability in the eyes of potential mates. The yardsticks by which they value others for relationships, they value themselves with as well. This may not always be 'the same' - ie Hugh Hefner and Crystal - but it is 'similar'. Hence, leagues.
ariadne999 Posted May 24, 2012 Posted May 24, 2012 And that's part of it as well. If two people are similar in appearance, have the same education, make similar amounts of money and the same social class etc, they are in each others league. But for some reason that's not good enough for many women. neither is it for many men. I am of average looks but make a lot of money. More then most men or women. (80k) yes I can't find a guy who is of average looks and I DONT CARE ABOUT HIS INCOME. Really, I don't. all the average guy i know would rather date a ho chick with no job, then me, an ave chick with a career and home. so i keep dating hot broke guys but just won't commit to one. in fact, i have a bunch of hot broke guys. And the best part? unlike hot chix who need moeny to put out, the hot broke boys are happy with a pizza and some cheap beer and treat me well. and? i have a limitless supply. women really do have it better, at least I do since I don't want kids.
Mme. Chaucer Posted May 24, 2012 Posted May 24, 2012 The idea of a "league" or your "equal" is too powerful among the people who are not succeeding in getting a relationship. I may be wrong, but I just can't imagine anything "real" flourishing when it started by making sure the person fit into a predetermined "box." Believe me, I know that many marriages are based upon such things. I don't think they have a good chance for long term success. People spark together for all kinds of different reasons. One needs to put themselves in situations where this might happen, and be in an open condition rather than a closed one when they do. I would NEVER NEVER get involved with a guy I was not feeling it for just to "give him a chance" and I would not expect a guy who wasn't feeling it for me to "give me a chance" either. That said, I've posted here before that I have ONLY been with men over 6 feet tall in my life. I never said to myself, "I require a man who is a minimum of 6 feet tall" (like you do, SD) but that's who I was drawn to. But, thank goodness I never had such a formal and strict parameter, or I would not have even dated my 5' 8" husband, who I love and am tremendously attracted to. I NEVER feel like I gave up on an important need of mine because he's a little person. Never. I love the way he is. This happened because I was open to it happening. 1
zengirl Posted May 24, 2012 Posted May 24, 2012 I agree with you for the most part, OP (as usual ), but I think there is a reason general 'leagues' exist. Simply, people often find themselves most compatible with others who have similar mindsets/priorities. I don't think that really applies to 'hotness' leagues though. Perhaps I think this way because I truly know quite a few beautiful people who are naturally beautiful or handsome, don't prioritize the status beauty excessively (they like things they personally find beautiful of course - everyone does), and so forth. So, being beautiful doesn't necessarily mean one prioritizes that in a mate or even in themselves--you just kind of are beautiful or not mostly. I'm not speaking to the augments (fitness, makeup, style, or surgical) one can make -- just the natural raw material you're given. However, if we were making "priorities" leagues, I'd say they'd come out a lot more even, especially if the people who prioritize things in others also prioritized the same in themselves (those who fall short of their own priorities often do poorly obviously). People spark together for all kinds of different reasons. One needs to put themselves in situations where this might happen, and be in an open condition rather than a closed one when they do. I would NEVER NEVER get involved with a guy I was not feeling it for just to "give him a chance" and I would not expect a guy who wasn't feeling it for me to "give me a chance" either. That said, I've posted here before that I have ONLY been with men over 6 feet tall in my life. I never said to myself, "I require a man who is a minimum of 6 feet tall" (like you do, SD) but that's who I was drawn to. Yes, this is my experience as well. Sparks come where they come, as they come, and you follow them as an individual. I do think, as Elswyth said, people find those who have similar priorities and values as they do and that may even mean similar traits. I think people even tend to marry those in similar class groups (not necessarily direct income levels, but classes) as the one they're in or that they come from. I think that's an even more direct correlation than looks, from my observation. I don't think most people who have happy, successful relationships bother rating themselves or others in terms of looks-leagues. That's what I've observed --- the people who are doing that are typically either players or flakes (male or female) who aren't really into anything serious OR the people who are always unsuccessful (male or female).
Emilia Posted May 25, 2012 Posted May 25, 2012 Basically, attractiveness is a very complex entity in the world of dating, sex and relationships as we know it. It's not as black and white as we might think it is IMO. What I find attractive has been changing throughout my life and as a smart man you know when I say 'attractive' I don't just mean 'good looking' We change as we go through life, no-one's taste or approach stays the same. We experiment and hopefully learn. Make mistakes, make good decisions. It's very complex as we grow and change. 1
Author ThaWholigan Posted May 25, 2012 Author Posted May 25, 2012 What I find attractive has been changing throughout my life and as a smart man you know when I say 'attractive' I don't just mean 'good looking' We change as we go through life, no-one's taste or approach stays the same. We experiment and hopefully learn. Make mistakes, make good decisions. It's very complex as we grow and change. Exactly, as I'm sure it changes for a lot of people as they get to know themselves more through getting know others.
Author ThaWholigan Posted May 25, 2012 Author Posted May 25, 2012 I don't think that really applies to 'hotness' leagues though. Perhaps I think this way because I truly know quite a few beautiful people who are naturally beautiful or handsome, don't prioritize the status beauty excessively (they like things they personally find beautiful of course - everyone does), and so forth. So, being beautiful doesn't necessarily mean one prioritizes that in a mate or even in themselves--you just kind of are beautiful or not mostly. I'm not speaking to the augments (fitness, makeup, style, or surgical) one can make -- just the natural raw material you're given. However, if we were making "priorities" leagues, I'd say they'd come out a lot more even, especially if the people who prioritize things in others also prioritized the same in themselves (those who fall short of their own priorities often do poorly obviously). I would say this is pretty accurate. As I often say, the most beautiful girls I ever met were usually single. This is probably a reverse effect of the whole league thing: guys felt inferior around them. Even I feel victim to that feeling. The feeling of "she's so beautiful . She's way out of my league". That's where it's harmful, because that girl probably thinks you're the coolest guy around. It's happened to me before. But I think there is a hidden aspect to beauty that is internal more than anything, that shines within your biomechanics. It's not just your external features, but your movement, your physical expression, your aura - these are things that can make a girl really stand out as beautiful on top of being pretty. And maybe, she isn't looking for a guy to look like Tyson Beckford or some dude who looks like him (when I was younger, girls either liked him, or Omarion ). Maybe she sees beauty in other areas, even if a couple of them are physical. It's important to view these things objectively, and recognize the league thing for what it is. I think people even tend to marry those in similar class groups (not necessarily direct income levels, but classes) as the one they're in or that they come from. I think that's an even more direct correlation than looks, from my observation. I don't think most people who have happy, successful relationships bother rating themselves or others in terms of looks-leagues. That's what I've observed --- the people who are doing that are typically either players or flakes (male or female) who aren't really into anything serious OR the people who are always unsuccessful (male or female). I see this more than I do looks based pairings. And I think the very few that were based on looks that worked, were because that in all other aspects they were similar on an unconscious level - it's just that both believed their looks brought them together.
Recommended Posts