Struggling guys told to "date-within-your-league"

[Cookiesandough]

I think leagues exist. People usually match up with their like naturally. Usually when I see an attractive person they are with another person of like attractiveness. It's very uncommon to see a gorgeous guy and not attractive woman and vice versa that I have given up hope. It's rare in that it catches my eye when I see it. I assume the same for EQ and IQ (as much as I dislike those terms), socioeconomic position, and other characteristics

Edited November 7, 2017 by Cookiesandough

[Andy_K]

Breaking off a relationship with one person and immediately starting one with a new person.

 

A point of clarification.... Monkey Branching involves grabbing hold of the new branch (relationship) before you've let go of the last one. Not necessarily to the extent of any physical cheating, but certainly making new connections and emotional attachments before ending the existing relationship.

[Cookiesandough]

I think leagues exist. People usually match up with their like naturally. Usually when I see an attractive person they are with another person of like attractiveness. It's very uncommon to see a gorgeous guy and not attractive woman and vice versa that I have given up hope. It's rare in that it catches my eye when I see it. I assume the same for EQ and IQ (as much as I dislike those terms), socioeconomic position, and other characteristics

 

I want to add to this, that most of the time in the rare instances you do see a mismatch in these ways, there's some offset/trade that occurs but they are both out of each other's league in other ways. Best example is wealthy unattractive man and beautiful woman. If not, I always feel like one person is putting up with a lot of crap from the other.

I've dated men who were socially out of my league (extremely popular), more educated, smarter, better looking, and it was always a somewhat uncomfortable experience to me because I was cognizant of it. I can only assume he was too.

 

Saying our value on dating market is all relative is a nice sentiment but I just haven't found it to be true...There are people who have it overall way better/easier in certain ways than others because they have more to offer people. And it's not that relative. It could be they have a cool personality. Most people can tell someone with an cool/fun personality from a boring curmudgeon.

Edited November 7, 2017 by Cookiesandough

[CptInsano]

I always had trouble with the "league concept". I seem to attract women who are not like me, and am more into women who complement me rather than are similar to me. I have had good luck with women from a similar economic or educational background, but as far as physical attractiveness or ethnicity go, it's been really hard for me to define a league, as I've been all over the place.

[WaitingForBardot]

Rather than worrying about my league per se, I have simply focused on women with whom I clicked. I don't just approach or talk to the ones I'm romantically inclined towards, I talk to pretty much anyone. Over time this has given me the ability to judge pretty accurately when women are interested in more with me and it is from within this group that I choose. And they have ranged so widely in terms of looks, personality, etc., that it is difficult for me to think in terms of my specific league.

[Imajerk17]

I guess my overall thought on hypothetical threads is that they tend to overcomplicate things. I mean, I get that we as a board love to overthink things, but I'm not sure how much there is to see here.

 

So often it seems that struggling guys are accused of only being attracted to superhot women and so are told to "stay in their league" in order to be more successful. I can't help but wonder if this can really lead to any kind of relationship, whether casual or committed, that is mutually exciting for both partners. After all, if the guy in his own mind is basically pre-settling before he even talks to a woman, can you really expect him become satisfied - at least to the point where he doesn't consider himself to be "struggling" anymore?

 

I never intentionally dated "up" or "down" based on physical looks, but it did turn out that with the few GFs I had when I was single, I was always the one who was more interested and it always resulted in them monkeybranching to other guys. With my wife, she was the one who was more interested - while in many ways we have a good life, neither situation is ideal.

 

The one place where Struggling Guys are told to do anything is really on forums such as these, when they ask for advice. (I suppose anyone who struggles with dating gets unsolicited advice which includes lowering attraction standards but I don't think it is gender specific .)

 

I'd never advise anyone to go for someone they aren't attracted to.

 

Anyway, I'm not that sure about the whole "leagues" concept anyway. I've seen plenty of couples that may seem mismatched in that regard, and very often, it is the woman who would be in the higher attraction "league". I've been attracted to women in supposedly lower leagues and not attracted to women in supposedly higher leagues. It's not like we are walking around with numbers on our forehead. When people connect, they connect.

Edited November 7, 2017 by Imajerk17

[BluEyeL]

Agree with IMJ. It's about connection and the whole league thing is evaluated only by people outside of that relationship, like people on the street who only look at the two and have their own subjective criteria.

 

Indeed the struggling guys sometimes are in lower so called leagues in social, career etc not just looks.

 

And who here is perfect ? Someone may look classically beautiful but have an awful/mean personality. Is that a 10? Someone may be average but smart and kind. A man may be short but financially successful and smart.

 

I don't know what number I have but I'm sure I'm not perfect in many ways other than body. I talk too much , I'm disorganized, I'm a bit insensitive etc etc etc. it's more who can you click with enough to put up with their imperfections and them with yours than to shoot for a looks only, largely irrelevant League.

[Cookiesandough]

I guess my overall thought on hypothetical threads is that they tend to overcomplicate things. I mean, I get that we as a board love to overthink things, but I'm not sure how much there is to see here.

 

 

 

The one place where Struggling Guys are told to do anything is really on forums such as these, when they ask for advice. (I suppose anyone who struggles with dating gets unsolicited advice which includes lowering attraction standards but I don't think it is gender specific .)

 

I'd never advise anyone to go for someone they aren't attracted to.

 

Anyway, I'm not that sure about the whole "leagues" concept anyway. I've seen plenty of couples that may seem mismatched in that regard, and very often, it is the woman who would be in the higher attraction "league". I've been attracted to women in supposedly lower leagues and not attracted to women in supposedly higher leagues. It's not like we are walking around with numbers on our forehead. When people connect, they connect.

 

 

You said you're not sure about leagues concept because you've seen people in "lower leagues" with people in "higher leagues". So you're not denying leagues may exist, you're just saying if they do you've seen people will date outside their league often.

There's this study I remember reading is that women are happier when married to less attractive men. Both people are happier and the marriage is less likely to dissolve.

Similar studies have been replicated numerous times. http://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2F0893-3200.22.1.135

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317502771_Adopting_a_dyadic_perspective_to_better_understand_the_association_between_physical_attractiveness_and_dieting_motivations_and_behaviors

 

Basically, in the study that I am referring to, they took newlywed couples and had strangers rate the individuals (incidentally, the strangers rated them pretty similarly, lending to the idea that there is some 'objectivity' to attractiveness) and then they rated them for satisfaction. The women who were married to men viewed as less attractive were the happiest, followed by men with attractive wives(previous studies have concluded this), then people with similar attractiveness lvls.

Edited November 8, 2017 by Cookiesandough

[CptInsano]

You said you're not sure about leagues concept because you've seen people in "lower leagues" with people in "higher leagues". So you're not denying leagues may exist, you're just saying if they do you've seen people will date outside their league often.[...]

 

Which is the same as saying that leagues don't really exist. There are differences in physical appearance, of course. But the question is rather whether certain boundaries exist that form a category, and not as a single person's preference but based on an overall consensus, that makes a person "datable". That is a much harder case to make than just saying that people are more or less physically attractive, and that it affects decision-making while dating.

[Cookiesandough]

Which is the same as saying that leagues don't really exist. There are differences in physical appearance, of course. But the question is rather whether certain boundaries exist that form a category, and not as a single person's preference but based on an overall consensus, that makes a person "datable". That is a much harder case to make than just saying that people are more or less physically attractive, and that it affects decision-making while dating.

 

Maybe I misunderstand you, but I disagree that it's the same. I think if they did not exist ImaJerk and I wouldn't be able to see a distinction, and if ImaJerk and I can see a distinction, there's no reason to assume person's in that relationship can't also see it, but are choosing to date even noting the disparity. OP himself admits that's the situation he finds himself in his current relationship and I have experienced it as well.

[Cookiesandough]

Which is the same as saying that leagues don't really exist. There are differences in physical appearance, of course. But the question is rather whether certain boundaries exist that form a category, and not as a single person's preference but based on an overall consensus, that makes a person "datable". That is a much harder case to make than just saying that people are more or less physically attractive, and that it affects decision-making while dating.

Can you explain more what you mean by this? I don't think I understand. There have been studies by dating sites which give insight into what the consensus finds attractive and there's no ambiguity. The women in the most attractive group get 25x the messages than the least. Age, height, weight, income,education, have been shown to affect the amount of interest received. I don't like it any more than anyone else, but I think anyone who denies a consensus of dating desirability is just taking a flight from facts. It doesn't just apply to relationships but other institutions as well, like work.

Edited November 8, 2017 by Cookiesandough

[salparadise]

Maybe I misunderstand you, but I disagree that it's the same. I think if they did not exist ImaJerk and I wouldn't be able to see a distinction, and if ImaJerk and I can see a distinction, there's no reason to assume person's in that relationship can't also see it, but are choosing to date even noting the disparity. OP himself admits that's the situation he finds himself in his current relationship and I have experienced it as well.

 

Of course they exist! They just don't have sharp edges or concise definitions. You can say you don't like it, or don't subscribe... but that doesn't change reality. You can say it's nothing more than bias, preference or perspective, but when those things drive the behavior of large numbers of people in a way that's observable and/or measurable, then it's actually a thing.

 

Just as people tend to socialize with others in their own socioeconomic class, people tend to date within a certain stratum based on perceived equity in the dating marketplace. Most people have a fair concept of their own equity and intuitively know that they're looking for someone of similar value. It's not just about looks; there are many factors. A person's station in life usually limits them to dating others in that group, while there are occasional outliers that manage to reach the next higher stratum. No one ever goes all the way from the bottom to the top. That only happens in fairy tales and disney movies, and in this wonderful scene where

.

[road]

Of course they exist! They just don't have sharp edges or concise definitions. You can say you don't like it, or don't subscribe... but that doesn't change reality. You can say it's nothing more than bias, preference or perspective, but when those things drive the behavior of large numbers of people in a way that's observable and/or measurable, then it's actually a thing.

 

Just as people tend to socialize with others in their own socioeconomic class, people tend to date within a certain stratum based on perceived equity in the dating marketplace. Most people have a fair concept of their own equity and intuitively know that they're looking for someone of similar value. It's not just about looks; there are many factors. A person's station in life usually limits them to dating others in that group, while there are occasional outliers that manage to reach the next higher stratum. No one ever goes all the way from the bottom to the top. That only happens in fairy tales and disney movies, and in this wonderful scene where

.

 

That video shows that people can marry above their league.

A person's rating is based on social position, wealth, age, career

and it's status, income, social skills, personality, looks.

 

Many of these factors can not be readily seen. So when we see

a match we can guess the attraction but not know for sure.

 

So what appears as a mismatch on the surface each one is

bringing enough of what the other person wants to the table

to make each other happy.

[CptInsano]

Can you explain more what you mean by this? I don't think I understand. There have been studies by dating sites which give insight into what the consensus finds attractive and there's no ambiguity. The women in the most attractive group get 25x the messages than the least. Age, height, weight, income,education, have been shown to affect the amount of interest received. I don't like it any more than anyone else, but I think anyone who denies a consensus of dating desirability is just taking a flight from facts. It doesn't just apply to relationships but other institutions as well, like work.

 

What I'm saying is that looks, income, education, wealth, ethnicity and harder to define parameters such as personality form an overall bias. Some may weigh some factors more than others, and these factors can change over one's lifetime. Aside from youth, symmetrical features and clear skin, few physical attributes are considered attractive independent of one's cultural background. This leaves varying degrees of attractiveness, but it is not exactly clear what to go by in a specific case of asking somebody to stay within her or his league. I'm thinking about it more of a bias with several dimensions than leagues.

[Andy_K]

I'm sure we'd all love to believe we're special snowflakes, and the trends and desires of society don't apply to us, but the majority of the time they do.

 

Short middle-aged unemployed bald guys rarely date supermodels. Chris Hemsworth lookalikes rarely date overweight middle aged women. For most people on the average to lower end of the desirability spectrum, you can wait until the end of time and you're not going to get that one in a million match.

 

It's also apparent in these threads that "I don't believe in leagues" is rather more often code for "I don't believe anybody is too good for me" than it is for "Nobody is too ugly or undesirable for me to consider dating". It works both ways. If you believe in standards, you believe in leagues.

[nospam99]

No one ever goes all the way from the bottom to the top.

 

Larry Fortensky/Liz Taylor (yeah yeah - the exception that proofs the rule)

[Cookiesandough]

What I'm saying is that looks, income, education, wealth, ethnicity and harder to define parameters such as personality form an overall bias. Some may weigh some factors more than others, and these factors can change over one's lifetime. Aside from youth, symmetrical features and clear skin, few physical attributes are considered attractive independent of one's cultural background. This leaves varying degrees of attractiveness, but it is not exactly clear what to go by in a specific case of asking somebody to stay within her or his league. I'm thinking about it more of a bias with several dimensions than leagues.

 

Thank you for elaborating. I don't see it that way, but I respect your input.

Edited November 8, 2017 by Cookiesandough

[CptInsano]

I'm sure we'd all love to believe we're special snowflakes, and the trends and desires of society don't apply to us, but the majority of the time they do.

 

I agree with the special snowflake comment, and I would say that indeed most people fall somewhere in the middle. People who shop at Target, get their hair cut at a discount salon, and exercise moderately. They simply look very similar and do similar things. I also work in a large office complex with about 10,000 other people. Very few of them stand out strongly until you get to know them better.

[OneLov]

So often it seems that struggling guys are accused of only being attracted to superhot women and so are told to "stay in their league" in order to be more successful. I can't help but wonder if this can really lead to any kind of relationship, whether casual or committed, that is mutually exciting for both partners. After all, if the guy in his own mind is basically pre-settling before he even talks to a woman, can you really expect him become satisfied - at least to the point where he doesn't consider himself to be "struggling" anymore?

 

I never intentionally dated "up" or "down" based on physical looks, but it did turn out that with the few GFs I had when I was single, I was always the one who was more interested and it always resulted in them monkeybranching to other guys. With my wife, she was the one who was more interested - while in many ways we have a good life, neither situation is ideal.

 

Of course there can be mutually satisfying relationships because most people, men and women, have an innate sense of their "league." At least, that is what science tells us.

 

https://www.livescience.com/2307-romance-matters-beautiful.html

 

"tudy results...suggest people who lack looks place more stock in non-physical features, such as sense of humor, than in physical beauty."

 

"Guys, however, are less concerned with their own looks when deciding whom to date, the findings suggest. So while a man might have no qualms about going after someone much better looking than he is, a woman will tend more to choose partners with compatible looks."

 

Unfortunately, looks matter more to the folks who are blessed with good features. So, I believe their is an inherent understanding of where we objectively rank among others. However, men are less likely to accept their "league." This can be a positive thing: It inspires a competitive drive to try and do whatever one can to "date up."

 

However, I do find there is this propagated myth of "looks are not as important to women," and men, in general, buy into it. Not sure if it is culturally ingrained denial or what, but even some women tend to downplay the importance of looks.

 

https://www.livescience.com/58607-mens-looks-may-matter-more-than-personality.html

 

"The results showed that as long as a man was considered attractive or moderately attractive, both mothers and daughters would pick the guy who had the most desirable personality traits. But when an unattractive male was paired with the most highly desirable personality profile, neither daughters nor mothers rated him as favorably as a potential romantic partner, compared with better-looking men with less desirable personalities."

[CptInsano]

"The results showed that as long as a man was considered attractive or moderately attractive, both mothers and daughters would pick the guy who had the most desirable personality traits. But when an unattractive male was paired with the most highly desirable personality profile, neither daughters nor mothers rated him as favorably as a potential romantic partner, compared with better-looking men with less desirable personalities."

 

That makes sense to me, meaning the existence of a threshold in physical attractiveness below which the lack of attractiveness is truly qualitative/disqualifying, and above which it is quantitative and combined with other selection criteria. I personally function similarly.

[carhill]

They call it the Lovett test

[d0nnivain]

It's not about settling.

 

 

When most people hear "league" they think looks. Telling somebody to date somebody they aren't attracted to is not helpful.

 

 

However, encouraging somebody to date people with like interests & like lifestyles is good advice. While big stretches & fairy tale romances do happen they are unlikely.

[Imajerk17]

You said you're not sure about leagues concept because you've seen people in "lower leagues" with people in "higher leagues". So you're not denying leagues may exist, you're just saying if they do you've seen people will date outside their league often.

There's this study I remember reading is that women are happier when married to less attractive men. Both people are happier and the marriage is less likely to dissolve.

Similar studies have been replicated numerous times. http://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2F0893-3200.22.1.135

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317502771_Adopting_a_dyadic_perspective_to_better_understand_the_association_between_physical_attractiveness_and_dieting_motivations_and_behaviors

 

Basically, in the study that I am referring to, they took newlywed couples and had strangers rate the individuals (incidentally, the strangers rated them pretty similarly, lending to the idea that there is some 'objectivity' to attractiveness) and then they rated them for satisfaction. The women who were married to men viewed as less attractive were the happiest, followed by men with attractive wives(previous studies have concluded this), then people with similar attractiveness lvls.

 

Sure. Men and women are drawn to different things though. Men are drawn primarily to looks, whereas women are drawn more to strength of personality, confidence, ect. These strangers were evaluating these men's attractiveness on the basis of looks, which matters much less.

 

But even that...chances are the couple connected, and the connection can't simply be explained by 'we're both about as good-looking as each other' or even 'I'm better-looking than he is but he has a better career and makes more money so I fell for him' (I am assuming that the couple is genuinely in love and that these aren't marriages where at least one person decided to settle). Hell, if you read the threads on here, lots of women and men go for partners with lots of problems all the time. People aren't evaluating potential romantic partners with some scorecard or anything.

 

If a guy struggles with women, it probably isn't his looks. But I digress. Getting back to the original topic, OP, where do you think "unattractive" guys are told to go for "less attractive" women, and why do you think guys are given this advice more than the opposite gender is? As I mentioned in my other posts on here, I am not seeing this.

Edited November 8, 2017 by Imajerk17

[Cookiesandough]

Hell, if you read the threads on here, lots of women and men go for partners with lots of problems all the time.

And I'd bet my right b**b those partners are out of their league in terms of something. Most of the women that come on here complaining about a guy shes been on a few dates and slept with and he faded her and I know he's good looking and/or successful. Same with the guys who put up with cheating and other crap from the women...bet you she's good looking relative to him. Edited November 8, 2017 by Cookiesandough

[OneLov]

And I'd bet my right b**b those partners are out of their league in terms of something. Most of the women that come on here complaining about a guy shes been on a few dates and slept with and he faded her and I know he's good looking and/or successful. Same with the guys who put up with cheating and other crap from the women...bet you she's good looking relative to him.

 

I think Cookies has a dog, and its name is Bingo!

 

The fact that a lot of guys operate under this misguided belief that looks aren't all that important to women is likely the answer to OP's question. More average looking guys go after "super hot" women because they do not respect that we, men and women--humans, are more alike than different when it comes to attraction. And because they hold onto the belief that looks aren't that important to women, they do not understand why they are not having success going after women more objectively attractive than themselves despite being having some mutual interests and having a great personality, job, status, etc..

 

In reference to the Live Science article:

 

"Guys, however, are less concerned with their own looks when deciding whom to date, the findings suggest. So while a man might have no qualms about going after someone much better looking than he is, a woman will tend more to choose partners with compatible looks.

 

Another recent study suggests that, in general, for both men and women physical attractiveness guides cupid's arrow."

 

If you accept that both men and women value physical attractiveness, I can see how this would be more of a problem for guys.

Edited November 8, 2017 by OneLov