Leigh 87 Posted June 16, 2016 Posted June 16, 2016 And my point is that your looks may have carried more weight to those men in terms of "league" than your financial status. I don't believe there is a clear cut formula for "league." It's more of a balanced scale depending on multiple factors. I think looks can carry women a long way. But from your answer above, all of these attractive, successful men who were pounding down your door to date you were fairly short flings. Did any result in a long term relationship? Did any result in a marriage proposal with a ring? A few dates or a month of dating is far different than a long term relationship. And words are just words. A guy who tells you on date two that he wants to marry you is blowing smoke. You really have no way of knowing whether those men would've stuck around for the long haul or whether they truly believed you were in their league for a long term relationship or marriage. They might've just been trying to have sex with you. I mean, it's funny that you have all theses wealthy guys dying to be in long term relationships with you (and you seem to value money and material things and travel, which requires money, quite a bit), yet your actual long term relationships that happened were with guys who didn't have much money, so you are stuck complaining about their "meager" earnings on this site. I have had well off men litersly fall head over heels for me. For month long periods. Look, I did well in school. Better than 95% of professjonals. I also ran a successful business at age18 in a super cut throat industry and sent myself overseas to every continent. Some people do not just toss me in the " lower league baskart" than my mate who has her masters for the fact that I chose world travel and desd end easy jobs to fund my adventerous lifestyle BEFORE college, rather than college first and travel later. To use my status and order in which I have done things in life to assign me, or anyone else, a " league, is just so ludacris. That is like saying.... well..... you may be smarter and just as interesting to talk to than your master and degree holding friends.... but their piece of paper means they are automaticslly more desirable and appealing to men than you are. Do you see hiw ridiculus that is? Men honestly wouldnt descerb any notible difference in superiority between me and my professional mates from conversation alone. Why? Because people are more than theur jobs and bank balance when it comes to attraction. I KNOW that at least SOME of the successful men oj paper who fell for me were legit. I do nit believe that evey man who has been into me was only after sex....... And I highly doubt thay would have dumped down the track due to my med/ podiatry degree status not being " impressive enough" for them???????????? So your argument regarding the well off guys not being long term partners is baseless-- as not EVERY successful guy on paper would have been outright disengenuous about falling for me, and once they were into me, it wouldnt make much sense that they would suddenky fjnd me " below their league" purely because of our STATUS misnatch! If I had been into any of the successful in paper guys, I am sure the relationship would have gone ahead and only ended over personality or value mismatches---- not discrepency in leagues. Again--- I have had more than one PHd tell me that they think I am clever with innovative ideas and I get hugh Ds kn a degree with verrrrry few igh D achievers. I am not that clever in all honestly but I can hold my own in as good of a manner as a professonal and mote successful in paper woman----- so why would there be such things as leagues????? Why would a man favour them over me, when they cab hypothetically have just as good of an interaction with the both of us? Status on paper simply mustnt meab much since two people, one with advanced degrees and one without any degrees----- can be of equal intelligence? Where are the leagues, then? Isnt it a but odd to thinm that well, a guy could fall head over heels wuth a poorer, student girl, have great and intelligent debates with her, and then ditch her purwly because on paper she is not wealthy or a degree holder??? So yes, I know for a fact that successful guys on paper found be intelligent and attractive enoug to cosider me for a relationship. Even without my status being successful on paper, I HAVE had successful men, in paper fall for me. And remain ss such for a year even before they moved on. I have had a long term relationship with a well off guy. He ended it becauze he never fell in love with me. Had nothing to do with my status jn life. And a lot of successful guys on paper have wsnted to date me; it isnt likely they they ALL just wanted sex? And my bf isnt in a low league despite my bfs average income? He is actually a hottie and I has hot exes despite hus average inome and non tall frame--- where are the leages? Hus exes were verhmy hot and desirabme and picked him over rich and successful men? As for fhe poor ex I hsd---- I go for connections. Not a guys resume. It was the fact he wss tight that bothered me.
GunslingerRoland Posted June 16, 2016 Posted June 16, 2016 Look, I did well in school. Better than 95% of professjonals. I also ran a successful business at age18 in a super cut throat industry and sent myself overseas to every continent. . But here lies the problem, you're trying to sell us on the idea that you are in a low league because you don't have a PHD, but clearly you are an exceptional case, who no one would consider in a low league, just like no one is going to consider Bill Gates a dummy for dropping out of college. Same as you do with your looks, trying to explain how you are supposedly in a low league because you aren't every single guy's type when you have many experiences of guys thinking you are incredibly beautiful. 1
Leigh 87 Posted June 16, 2016 Posted June 16, 2016 And my point is that your looks may have carried more weight to those men in terms of "league" than your financial status. I don't believe there is a clear cut formula for "league." It's more of a balanced scale depending on multiple factors. I think looks can carry women a long way. But from your answer above, all of these attractive, successful men who were pounding down your door to date you were fairly short flings. Did any result in a long term relationship? Did any result in a marriage proposal with a ring? A few dates or a month of dating is far different than a long term relationship. And words are just words. A guy who tells you on date two that he wants to marry you is blowing smoke. You really have no way of knowing whether those men would've stuck around for the long haul or whether they truly believed you were in their league for a long term relationship or marriage. They might've just been trying to have sex with you. I mean, it's funny that you have all theses wealthy guys dying to be in long term relationships with you (and you seem to value money and material things and travel, which requires money, quite a bit), yet your actual long term relationships that happened were with guys who didn't have much money, so you are stuck complaining about their "meager" earnings on this site. I dont believe that the ALL or MOST of the successful on paper men that have fallen for me throughout my life, have ALL thought " well I wil use her for sex because she is not college educated and therfore is below my league" The majority of men that have expressed interest have been richer and more successful than myself. The men I fell for were just not well off. Has it ever occured to you that human beings are more than their degrees and on paper acconplishments? I have more natural apptitude for science and academic areas than my degreed friends---- so why would a well educated successful guy deem me as below his league sinply because of my status in paper, despite being able to have the same conversations with me as he can with my degreed peers??????? So..same level of attraction..same conversation capacity..... why would what a person is on paper determine their league? It just makes no sense that a person would deem me or anyone else as " below their league" based in what we are on paper, IRRESPECTIVE of our natural talents and interpersonal interactioj with them.
Leigh 87 Posted June 16, 2016 Posted June 16, 2016 But here lies the problem, you're trying to sell us on the idea that you are in a low league because you don't have a PHD, but clearly you are an exceptional case, who no one would consider in a low league, just like no one is going to consider Bill Gates a dummy for dropping out of college. Same as you do with your looks, trying to explain how you are supposedly in a low league because you aren't every single guy's type when you have many experiences of guys thinking you are incredibly beautiful. But look how subjective looks are! I have EQUALLY as many people that think I am ugly or plain. My 2 female friends on the other hand, are conventiolly beautiful! MOST men think they are stunning. Yet I seem to have been able to get just as many men to fall for me despite the fact they have degrees and universally good looks, unlike my quirky and less widely loved looks! It is about chemistry, therfore, chemistry and interpersonal interaction and VALUES, than it is about LEAGUES.
Shepp Posted June 16, 2016 Posted June 16, 2016 Leagues may not exist except in extreme circunstances, however, most people know a few key things: They know they arent drop dead gorgeous Errrrrr.. I think I'm f****** stunning actually! :p 3
Leigh 87 Posted June 17, 2016 Posted June 17, 2016 Errrrrr.. I think I'm f****** stunning actually! :p Your wife sure thinks so! 1
Leigh 87 Posted June 17, 2016 Posted June 17, 2016 Lol I cannot believe that posted who alluded toall the rich men that ever fell for me not being the ones I ended up wirh, due to me not being in their league. As if men just... stop falling in love if a girl is not well off or college educated --- yet has the same emotional and intellectual capacity as little miss masters degree? Just because I fell for non successful in paper men that doesnt mean it was because the well off and successful guys were above my league" in their own eyes. Men care mostly about boobs. Or looks if they are not bit boob fanatics. Once your looks capture their interest and they fall for you, most men only care that you are either working r studyng with a clear direction in an employable area. Anyone who suggests that men who fall hard for a woman suddenly drop them for the fact they are not " college educated" or " successful enough on paper" have no clue how men work LOL. Yes decent men want a clever woman. But they dont tend to.... fall for one and then find it a deal breaker if the woman is not a certain " league" to societies eyes!
Revolver Posted June 17, 2016 Posted June 17, 2016 It's rare. Hooking up/short term flings with someone out of your league is more like it. 1
clia Posted June 17, 2016 Posted June 17, 2016 I dont believe that the ALL or MOST of the successful on paper men that have fallen for me throughout my life, have ALL thought " well I wil use her for sex because she is not college educated and therfore is below my league" I never said this. In fact, I didn't say 99% of what you are asserting and ranting about above. My point is simply that you don't know whether all of these highly successful men would have pursued a long term relationship with you because they were all merely short term dating situations. You have heard people refer to women as "girlfriend material" or "marriage material," right? And how they perceived whether you were in their "league" for those purposes could be based on any number of things, including your looks, work, financial status, personality, ambition level, whatever. It's not just one thing. I never said a guy would dump you because you don't have a college degree. (But he might, depending on the guy and how important to him that was for a long term mate.). The majority of men that have expressed interest have been richer and more successful than myself. To be fair, this isn't a high bar. You are 30 years old, working part time, if that, and living in your parents' house off your student allowance. I would think most men you encounter would be richer and more successful than you. Your boyfriend certainly is, despite his meager earnings that you constantly complain about. The men I fell for were just not well off. Ok. Has it ever occured to you that human beings are more than their degrees and on paper acconplishments? I have more natural apptitude for science and academic areas than my degreed friends---- so why would a well educated successful guy deem me as below his league sinply because of my status in paper, despite being able to have the same conversations with me as he can with my degreed peers??????? So..same level of attraction..same conversation capacity..... why would what a person is on paper determine their league? It just makes no sense that a person would deem me or anyone else as " below their league" based in what we are on paper, IRRESPECTIVE of our natural talents and interpersonal interactioj with them. A guy could deem you are below his league for any number of reasons. People are fickle that way. If you want to believe people don't do this, that's up to you. I personally think people do, and as I said, it is based on a lot of different factors, some which might carry more weight than others in certain situations. 4
scorpiogirl Posted June 17, 2016 Posted June 17, 2016 Lol I cannot believe that posted who alluded toall the rich men that ever fell for me not being the ones I ended up wirh, due to me not being in their league. Men care mostly about boobs. Or looks if they are not bit boob fanatics. Once your looks capture their interest and they fall for you, most men only care that you are either working r studyng with a clear direction in an employable area. Anyone who suggests that men who fall hard for a woman suddenly drop them for the fact they are not " college educated" or " successful enough on paper" have no clue how men work LOL. Yes decent men want a clever woman. But they dont tend to.... fall for one and then find it a deal breaker if the woman is not a certain " league" to societies eyes! I don't think YOU know how men work. Men care mostly about boobs? How insulting to men. Just because the men In your life only care about your boobs and don't care about the fact that you're taking forever to get some kind of qualification, doesn't mean that's all men. Men like my smarts, my wicked sense of humour, my charm,my education, my conversation skills AND my looks. I'm waaaaaay above average-looking. Decent men want more than boobs. Rest assured. 4
Liam1 Posted June 17, 2016 Posted June 17, 2016 It is about chemistry, therfore, chemistry and interpersonal interaction and VALUES, than it is about LEAGUES. Chemistry sparks the initial lust, only. Lust does not last in a long term relationship. We are talking about long term relationships. Remember the people here are talking about the fact the most SUCCESSFUL long term relationships are the ones in which people are most similar in values and intellectual capacity. They are not talking about lust and initial attraction or dating material. They are referring to marriage material. Equal intellectual capacity along with similar values is what enables successful interpersonal interaction. So basically you can call it values and ability to interact personally, or you can call it the same league. It's just semantics you are arguing at this point. The statement from your post that I quoted basically indicates that you agree that people who are similar (or in the same league) have more successful relationships. I thought you were younger than 30 based on your logic not looks. IMO, by the time someone is 30 and out on their own in the real world, they realize that being in the same league matters in ALL aspects of life.....careers, relationships, social circles, etc. Oh, and regarding men being attracted to "boobs". Huh! That is a major and inaccurate generalization. It may apply to some men, but not all. I could care less about a women's boobs. It is intellectual capacity and similar values and an ability to communicate are the things that are important to me, when looking for a long term relationship. 6
Toodaloo Posted June 17, 2016 Posted June 17, 2016 Where the hell did I shame men? Notice two men agreed with my post? YOU prioritise looks over everything. As I said ... DECENT men value a more complete package. I'm not interested in your type fortunately, so I surround myself with men who do believe in my Equality ideology ( no need for quotation marks- it's a real thing) Can I just add that men are just as fickle as women... They all want something different in "their" woman. Some like big boobs, some like small. Some like blondes, some brunettes and some go mad for a red head... Short, fat, thin, tall... you will never please them all so may as well just get on with it. 1
Toodaloo Posted June 17, 2016 Posted June 17, 2016 I don't think you know how men work. And I doubt that surrounding yourself with 'yes men' is helping that. Actually I was agreeing with Scorpiogirl... I didn't agree with your comments all that much I am afraid... A woman who is a 10 in one mans league will be a 3 in another... Looks are also subject to being able to maintain them and many men would rather have a woman who weathers well than is a flash in the pan in terms of looks... 1
Jabron1 Posted June 17, 2016 Posted June 17, 2016 Can I just add that men are just as fickle as women... They all want something different in "their" woman. Some like big boobs, some like small. Some like blondes, some brunettes and some go mad for a red head... Short, fat, thin, tall... you will never please them all so may as well just get on with it. You can't please everyone. True. But I think there are few men who would kick my ex out of bed for an example. If you are using this as an argument that looks are irrelevant, leagues unreal, or the ability to improve your league unfathomable, then I completely disagree. 1
Timshel Posted June 17, 2016 Posted June 17, 2016 There are no 'leagues.' A romance is compatible long term..or not. Science will never explain love/devotion...what happy horse cr*p to seek an equation. Love, attraction are intangible and rightfully so. Otherwise we would be walking about with measuring apparatus before any interaction..... 1
Author Larryville Posted June 17, 2016 Author Posted June 17, 2016 A woman who is a 10 in one mans league will be a 3 in another... Looks are also subject to being able to maintain them and many men would rather have a woman who weathers well than is a flash in the pan in terms of looks... I wish in a setting like this there was a way to quantify this. Do men have that dramatic a difference in terms of what they consider a 10 or a 3? If men have specific preferences (height, weight, race, hair color, body part preferences) how much does that affect where he rates a woman? Or is beauty universal? Also do men, when pursuing a long term relationship vs a short term or hook-up go dramatically away from his “desired” traits just to be in a relationship or just to hook-up? An example… if a guy says I don’t like “overweight” women but would get on a dating site and pursue a usually “less than desirable” overweight woman just to have a regular bed buddy? Also do or would a woman ever do that? 1
scorpiogirl Posted June 17, 2016 Posted June 17, 2016 I wish in a setting like this there was a way to quantify this. Do men have that dramatic a difference in terms of what they consider a 10 or a 3? If men have specific preferences (height, weight, race, hair color, body part preferences) how much does that affect where he rates a woman? Or is beauty universal? Also do men, when pursuing a long term relationship vs a short term or hook-up go dramatically away from his “desired” traits just to be in a relationship or just to hook-up? An example… if a guy says I don’t like “overweight” women but would get on a dating site and pursue a usually “less than desirable” overweight woman just to have a regular bed buddy? Also do or would a woman ever do that? There isn't any one answer to any of this. Everyone needs and wants different things. Some are more prepared to compromised than others. Also the same person's "requirements" could change over time. Some people are practical about their relationships, others have a very romantic view of things. Some value superficial attributes and others value what's on the inside. The men I've been involved with varied on looks, fitness level, body type, education. Looks are not important to me. I value someone with a similar sense of humour. Someone with similar education. If you're attractive but we can't have a proper conversation using more than monosyllables then I'm not interested. I guess I don't think about leagues in terms of looks. There have been men who I thought were waaaay too good-looking for me and they'd ask me out. There isn't a standard "this is a 10". My 10 probably won't be your 10.
jen1447 Posted June 17, 2016 Posted June 17, 2016 An example… if a guy says I don’t like “overweight” women but would get on a dating site and pursue a usually “less than desirable” overweight woman just to have a regular bed buddy? Also do or would a woman ever do that? I don't think men and women (regular ones) are really that much different. Everyone has tastes but the more compelling thing is what happens when they become 3 dimensional. So if you get charmed by a "plus sized" woman or a "big" guy, you'll magically find you start liking that physique. And so on. 2
Liam1 Posted June 17, 2016 Posted June 17, 2016 I wish in a setting like this there was a way to quantify this. Do men have that dramatic a difference in terms of what they consider a 10 or a 3? If men have specific preferences (height, weight, race, hair color, body part preferences) how much does that affect where he rates a woman? Or is beauty universal? Larry: Just my 2 cents. I think there is a standard of beauty among both men and women that all people recognize. In our present global society it MAY be a universal standard whereas in the past it may have been only a cultural standard. There are actually studies that show that men and women both stare longer at pictures of men or women who meet the popular standard of beauty. However, there are always outliars. Therefore some people will be attracted to people who fall outside the typically recognized standard of beauty. Nevertheless there is still a standard that 9 out of ten people will agree equates to attractiveness. Also do men, when pursuing a long term relationship vs a short term or hook-up go dramatically away from his “desired” traits just to be in a relationship or just to hook-up? An example… if a guy says I don’t like “overweight” women but would get on a dating site and pursue a usually “less than desirable” overweight woman just to have a regular bed buddy? Also do or would a woman ever do that? Sometimes, yes for both men and women. It all depends on how easy it is to attract other people who meet their standard. 1
Author Larryville Posted June 17, 2016 Author Posted June 17, 2016 Some are more prepared to compromised than others. Also the same person's "requirements" could change over time. Everyone needs and wants different things. I know I’m freaking overthinking this, and yes much of my problem. I like to think I would compromise… or maybe not... Some of the things that stand out more for me these days when I am browsing an OLD profile pic/profile info are things like how neurotic is she. I don’t deal with hyper manic types real well. Her sense of style, I don’t mean dressing up necessarily but someone “polished” I mentioned before I work in a high profile place and we have VIP’s and have fancy receptions and dinners (I’m very laid back but can clean up well) so whomever I am with I’m imagining her in a nice dress and whether or not she can fit into that type of event. For me even things like eye contact (I love attractive eyes), someones voice (how she speaks) I like someone articulate, with a calming voice and tone. This kinda goes to maybe not “leagues” drawing a blank on what that actually is. Bottom line I personally would not be attracted to a beer guzzling, heavily tattooed, lots of piercings, very short hair, un or undereducated. Having “flair” comes with someone’s status, also how they were raised. Been with women who overall may have been a 6 for example but were the types who lit up a room, great smile, fashion conscious, very smart, sexy personality and engaging that gave them a couple of extra points because of their entire being. Like I said I know I’m WAY over processing this, why the topic was intriguing to me.
scorpiogirl Posted June 17, 2016 Posted June 17, 2016 I know I’m freaking overthinking this, and yes much of my problem. I like to think I would compromise… or maybe not... Some of the things that stand out more for me these days when I am browsing an OLD profile pic/profile info are things like how neurotic is she. I don’t deal with hyper manic types real well. Her sense of style, I don’t mean dressing up necessarily but someone “polished” I mentioned before I work in a high profile place and we have VIP’s and have fancy receptions and dinners (I’m very laid back but can clean up well) so whomever I am with I’m imagining her in a nice dress and whether or not she can fit into that type of event. For me even things like eye contact (I love attractive eyes), someones voice (how she speaks) I like someone articulate, with a calming voice and tone. This kinda goes to maybe not “leagues” drawing a blank on what that actually is. Bottom line I personally would not be attracted to a beer guzzling, heavily tattooed, lots of piercings, very short hair, un or undereducated. Having “flair” comes with someone’s status, also how they were raised. Been with women who overall may have been a 6 for example but were the types who lit up a room, great smile, fashion conscious, very smart, sexy personality and engaging that gave them a couple of extra points because of their entire being. Like I said I know I’m WAY over processing this, why the topic was intriguing to me. You don't need to label it, do you? You have a type. And you have deal breakers. Smoking is a deal breaker for me, and my "general" type is someone who shares my sense of humour. Other things are secondary. again, not leagues. Are these terms closer to what you're trying to convey?
JuanDelToro Posted June 17, 2016 Posted June 17, 2016 The brotherhood of the white knights of the round table. All they really care for are boobs and ass. But they lie in support of "equality" because somehow they're convinced that this the only path to "getting some". In reality, that is an one way road to "not getting much at all", while having your balls removed, your nature as man desecrated and live a life full of drama. The first thing that attracts me in a woman is her butt, then her legs, then her breasts, then her curves, then her movements, then her neck, then her eyes, then her lips, then her smile, then her voice, then her words, then her wit... Getting completely intoxicated by her is a gradual and slow process. My nature calls me to start this process by f her brains out, not by f her brain. Without that calling I wouldn't have the need to be around her at all. I stay true to my nature and i don't hide it, thus the women in my life, add to my happiness and i add to theirs. Equality is in the giving, not in the taking. That applies to all accounts andin all leagues. Gender roles, attraction, societal layers and so on. 2
Author Larryville Posted June 17, 2016 Author Posted June 17, 2016 You don't need to label it, do you? You have a type. And you have deal breakers. Smoking is a deal breaker for me, and my "general" type is someone who shares my sense of humour. Other things are secondary. You are right and no I don’t think it needs a label. Going back to my OP I have read a number of thread here about whether someone decides to pursue someone who according to them “is very attractive” and in many of these reads if the OP refers to someone’s level of attractiveness and later in the post (thread) refers to some inadequacy in their own looks or “worth” whether that is educationally, or financially that spells doom for any relationship potential. “out of your league” An expression used when a “girl” is just too hot for you and you have absolutely no chance with him/her. in a situation where you no chance of succeeding, especially due to lack of "whatever" Again just processing...
Confused9999 Posted June 17, 2016 Posted June 17, 2016 (edited) Of course there are leagues. If you don't believe that you are just being naive. As Liam said beauty is fairly universal. There is a certain standard that the majority of people from almost every culture and country adhere too. In fact there are even scientific studies that show symmetry and of a face and ratio of body to define beauty. There were countless experiments and studies that prove that beautiful people get more attention, get more help from strangers, get More lenient sentences by juries, get more promotions and more money at work.. Etc..etc.. This reaction toward beautiful people is even from same sex and opposite sex. The discussion should not be whether there is leagues but rather back to the OP point do marriages last if there is a discrepency. The "league" of a person is a weighted combination of all the variables as physical, charisma, status, wealth, confidence, humor etc..etc.. Men tend to value physical beauty much more then women. Women tend to value charisma, confidence and status much more then physical beauty. (Of course men and women value everything as a package but for the most part what I wrote is the main initial weighting the majority of the time) from personal experience I think I am ok looking, probably a 7.5, but have dated 9s. I am typically very self confident but It gets very annoying when we would go to a bar and I walk away To get drinks or bathroom and there always be guys trying to hit on her when I return. This is the key point... I think the more value or "league" someone has (looks for women and status, charisma for men) the more opportunity they have for mating. Therefore if you are 7 and they are a 10 and you get into tough time in your relationship they can have many 8,9,10 hitting on them. Doesn't mean they will leave but the more opportunity and quantity of people that show interest the easier it is to walk away and have an ego boost. If you are more evenly matched then there is no real benefit in walking away and you tend to stick through the hard times. Edited June 17, 2016 by Confused9999 1
Leigh 87 Posted June 18, 2016 Posted June 18, 2016 Chemistry sparks the initial lust, only. Lust does not last in a long term relationship. We are talking about long term relationships. Remember the people here are talking about the fact the most SUCCESSFUL long term relationships are the ones in which people are most similar in values and intellectual capacity. They are not talking about lust and initial attraction or dating material. They are referring to marriage material. Equal intellectual capacity along with similar values is what enables successful interpersonal interaction. So basically you can call it values and ability to interact personally, or you can call it the same league. It's just semantics you are arguing at this point. The statement from your post that I quoted basically indicates that you agree that people who are similar (or in the same league) have more successful relationships. I thought you were younger than 30 based on your logic not looks. IMO, by the time someone is 30 and out on their own in the real world, they realize that being in the same league matters in ALL aspects of life.....careers, relationships, social circles, etc. Oh, and regarding men being attracted to "boobs". Huh! That is a major and inaccurate generalization. It may apply to some men, but not all. I could care less about a women's boobs. It is intellectual capacity and similar values and an ability to communicate are the things that are important to me, when looking for a long term relationship. I so dont look over 30.
Recommended Posts