Necromancer Posted October 6, 2012 Posted October 6, 2012 There are leagues when it comes to dating. Since i work out and have good diet, in 1 digit body fat (around 9%) and have attractive body. Then i refuse to date an fat woman... why?. Because i want a women who is ready to put in the same effort in her appearance. You can hate all you want but i am out of 5´6, 170 pounds woman league. When it comes to physical appearance.
ThaWholigan Posted October 6, 2012 Posted October 6, 2012 That's not a league, that's you choosing not to date women you aren't attracted to. 7
oaks Posted October 6, 2012 Posted October 6, 2012 There are leagues when it comes to dating. I'm going to disagree, and here's why. I see it like this: There are people you fancy, and people you don't. There are people who fancy you, and people who don't. The trick is finding people in the first group who are also in the third group. That's it. The idea of leagues suggests or implies some sort of universal ranking of attractiveness, but there isn't such a thing (even though there are some general things that many people agree are attractive or unattractive traits or characteristics or features). So, no leagues. Just go after people you fancy and hope they fancy you back! 2
oldshirt Posted October 6, 2012 Posted October 6, 2012 Oh there are undeniably leagues. The problem is there isn't any governing body determining what everyone's league is. That's something that everyone has to figure out by themselves through trial and error. And it's completely subjective on the individual. one person's 10 is another persons 4 based on their own subjective values and preferences.
Kamille Posted October 6, 2012 Posted October 6, 2012 And your approach to dating makes me out of your league. It all works out. 3
xdahliax Posted October 6, 2012 Posted October 6, 2012 I don't think that we have the same definition of 'leagues'. More goes into a league than weight. I'm a 5'6'' woman, 190 lbs (yes I can afford to lose some)...but I am healthy because I eat well and work out every damn day. I'm often told that I am beautiful/sexy, and I rock couture like nobody's business. I also have two university degrees. So I may be fat, but I'm pretty sure a lot of people I know may consider me out of YOUR league. The point is...if I like someone, leagues don't matter. So do yourself a favour and stop being ridiculous, you probably radiate a pompousness that hurts your game with women. 3
SmileFace Posted October 6, 2012 Posted October 6, 2012 Wait so you would date a fat women if you were fat? Do you realize how stupid that sounds? How does one attraction change? My attraction to guys have always been the same from me being overweight to average size, to fit and to average again.
Mrlonelyone Posted October 6, 2012 Posted October 6, 2012 Their certainly are leagues. It's not as simple as the OP makes it sound. It is a complex psycho social mix of looks and statuses. The "leagues" exist because relationships between people who are too dissimilar don't last long, if they form at all. I am a reasonably good looking MTF transwoman who is in good shape and well educated. Is it really asking too much of my partner that he/she also be in decent shape* and educated in some way? These requirements, and leagues rule out all but less than a percent of the population when taken together. On the other hand, we each only need one or two true loves in a lifetime. Am I rite? *According to the CDC about 2/3 of americans are overweight or obese. 1/3 are college educated
oaks Posted October 6, 2012 Posted October 6, 2012 *According to the CDC about 2/3 of americans are overweight or obese. 1/3 are college educated When I looked at the URL I initially read it as "fatstats". 1
tori0001 Posted October 6, 2012 Posted October 6, 2012 It's funny how people but labels on other people. You get a person that says I'm in good shape, is it too much to ask to date someone in good shape. I myself have dated tall, short, fat, skinny, and balding men. Men with a lot of money, men with ptsd, and men who lives in a paper bag(well almost). These so called labels on people, or leagues, what happened to someone just being real, a good person. I don't care where you come from, the money you make, your weight, whether you're balding, where you live, or your past. It's irrelevant as long as I'm compatible with the current person I'm with. Having these so called leagues, you could be missing out on a lot great opportunities. Off my soap box now.
veggirl Posted October 6, 2012 Posted October 6, 2012 There are "leagues", whether people want to call them that or not! The funny thing is, most the people on LS who shout about how there is no such thing as leagues have quite an extensive list of what they require in a mate! If requiring a white collar man who is above 5'11 doesn't put you out of the league of men who AREN'T that then...what?! lol. It's semantics and PCness to deny "leagues". It goes both ways, men and women have their "leagues" and things that put someone in "their league" and things that take them out of it. 3
MrCastle Posted October 6, 2012 Posted October 6, 2012 Leagues are completely personal and subjective depending on the individual. I've seen plenty of physically mismatched couples. Girls that could be doing way better, guys that could be doing way better. When I see a girl I fancy, I don't say "ah i'm probably not in her league, let me find someone slightly less attractive"--I'll go after anyone I feel attracted to. 2
SteveC80 Posted October 6, 2012 Posted October 6, 2012 Wait so you would date a fat women if you were fat? Do you realize how stupid that sounds? How does one attraction change? My attraction to guys have always been the same from me being overweight to average size, to fit and to average again. But some of these guys you were attracted to you may not have been able to get at your heaviest hence were leagues come into play But i agree just because someone is fat or ugly dosnt mean they are attracted to people as ugly as them they still are attracted to the good looking people like everyone else but for self preseration they settle for what they can get usually a person o somewhat similliar attractiveness level
SmileFace Posted October 6, 2012 Posted October 6, 2012 But some of these guys you were attracted to you may not have been able to get at your heaviest hence were leagues come into play But i agree just because someone is fat or ugly dosnt mean they are attracted to people as ugly as them they still are attracted to the good looking people like everyone else but for self preseration they settle for what they can get usually a person o somewhat similliar attractiveness level I was only talking about my attraction - not who is attracted to me. Who I have been attracted has not changed. However I am not one " oh it's your personality that matters" so I get what you are saying. I was merely commenting on attractions I have and not who has been attracted to me. Plus all my H.S class mates are coming out of the woodworks now, guys who wouldn't have lookied in my direction before -- so I know the difference in attraction.
xdahliax Posted October 6, 2012 Posted October 6, 2012 "Some" as in pretty much 50% of your body weight. At 5'6" and 190 pounds you're not out of anyone's league. Well maybe if they're unemployed. Here's an example of someone that is 195 lbs and 5'6'': Browse Photos - My Body Gallery - What Real Women Look Like This is what a lot of women look like. I would think that nearly half of women are this size or bigger, so if +-50% of women can only get with unemployed men, there is a serious problem. Or maybe the only problem here is that you're an bigot.
tori0001 Posted October 6, 2012 Posted October 6, 2012 Are you saying people in the U.S. are fat? Go back and look at the days of Marilyn Monroe, that was the days of real beautiful women. Not the skinny looking females of today that's considered attractive.
oaks Posted October 6, 2012 Posted October 6, 2012 Are you saying people in the U.S. are fat? Mostly, yes. 1
tori0001 Posted October 6, 2012 Posted October 6, 2012 Marilyn Monroe is what a woman body should look like. I don't know what happened to our society thinking looking like a stick is attractive. A size 7 to size 12 is not over weight. 5 foot 5 and 150 pounds is not over weight.
veggirl Posted October 6, 2012 Posted October 6, 2012 Here's an example of someone that is 195 lbs and 5'6'': Browse Photos - My Body Gallery - What Real Women Look Like This is what a lot of women look like. I would think that nearly half of women are this size or bigger, so if +-50% of women can only get with unemployed men, there is a serious problem. Or maybe the only problem here is that you're an bigot. :confused: she looks average and does not look 195 lbs to me. I mean s.hit I am 5'8 and 125-130, if I gained SIXTY TO SEVENTY POUNDS I would look huuuuuuge. She looks like she weighs like 150. 2
iris219 Posted October 6, 2012 Posted October 6, 2012 I’m not sure why people use Marilyn as an example of a “big” but beautiful woman. Look at pictures of her. She’s not a big woman at all. Marilyn Monroe, who was indeed voluptuous, wasn’t big by any means. She’s rumored to have had a 22 or 23 inch waist (according to her dressmaker). Studios listed her weight at 115-120 (she was 5'5" 1/2). She would be around a size 4 today, which makes sense with the vanity sizing they do now. Women in the 40s and 50s, overall, were statistically smaller than we are now. There were way fewer overweight and obese women. 1
xdahliax Posted October 6, 2012 Posted October 6, 2012 :confused: she looks average and does not look 195 lbs to me. I mean s.hit I am 5'8 and 125-130, if I gained SIXTY TO SEVENTY POUNDS I would look huuuuuuge. She looks like she weighs like 150. It all depends on bone structure and muscle mass. A person who weighs 190 lbs and works out all the time will not look like a person who weighs 190 lbs and does nothing.
mesmerized Posted October 6, 2012 Posted October 6, 2012 Marilyn Monroe is what a woman body should look like. I don't know what happened to our society thinking looking like a stick is attractive. A size 7 to size 12 is not over weight. 5 foot 5 and 150 pounds is not over weight. Depends on where they store their fat and also their body fat percentage. 2
tori0001 Posted October 6, 2012 Posted October 6, 2012 It's average. What would be considered not to be overweight. Myself, I'm 5 foot 5, weigh about 160 pounds and wear a size 9. I walk, run, and weight train. I'm not real skinny, nor fat. I look healthy. I don't get peoples version of fat or obese.
oaks Posted October 6, 2012 Posted October 6, 2012 It's average. What would be considered not to be overweight. Myself, I'm 5 foot 5, weigh about 160 pounds and wear a size 9. I walk, run, and weight train. I'm not real skinny, nor fat. I look healthy. I don't get peoples version of fat or obese. "Fat" is subjective. "Obese" (and "overweight") aren't - in that there's a well accepted definition based not on dress size but on height and weight. The previous example of 5 foot 5 and 150 pounds is right on the line between Overweight and Normal Weight. I haven't found an authoritative enough source to figure out which... many sources are written ambiguously and include BMI = 25 (which that equates to) as being both at the top of one range and at the bottom of the other.
iris219 Posted October 6, 2012 Posted October 6, 2012 It's average. What would be considered not to be overweight. Myself, I'm 5 foot 5, weigh about 160 pounds and wear a size 9. I walk, run, and weight train. I'm not real skinny, nor fat. I look healthy. I don't get peoples version of fat or obese. If you're healthy, who cares? The same goes for women who are criticized for being too thin. If they are healthy and comfortable with their bodies, it doesn't matter. There isn't one right size. I hate the whole you're too fat (clearly you eat too much and watch TV all day) or you're too thin ("real" women don't look like that) discussion.
Recommended Posts