"leagues" of attractiveness - who's out of your league?!

[DraenorQueen]

So, I'm fat. Size 22, 5 foot 7. Huge boobs but undeniably fat. I'm sociable though... genuine, intelligent (i like to think!!) and have an acceptably pleasant face. I've slept with many men, some of whom were EXTREMELY good looking, and when I think back to these I always think "god, they were out of my league." And that got me thinking. Does anyone else have these "leagues?" Do you put yourself into a league and do you do it with others?

I'm stewing it over tonight as I REALLY fancy a (single) bloke from work, and we flirt and get on a treat. But because I'm fat and he's incredibly fit and attractive, I automatically write off the possibility of anything because he's "out of my league."

I hate that I do myself down and apparently don't regard myself as a "catch." But... I can't help feeling this "leagues" thing is real. Would welcome any thoughts.

[HPsauciness]

I think the kinder way of saying it is 'compatibility', the more ruthless way of saying it is 'league'

You certainly do get people who date unexpectedly or people who you wouldn't predict, that's often remarked on if there is a huge age gap, a huge looks differential or some other inequality which doesn't appear comprehensible. Young female with looks and older male with money or status is so typical, it's unremarkable (my work is full of middle-aged quite unattractive but very clever men with women 10-20 years younger).

This can also happen as you age, so in the example of the top cardiologist, my guess is that when they were young, they would have both been young, intelligent and attractive, and over time one of them got very sick and ill and the cardiologist, being a very loving person did not worry what others thought but about his love for his wife. Looks and 'status' are far less important I think in a long-term committed relationship, and so 'leagues' are an utterly inappropriate way to evaluate those, thank goodness.

However, those who say 'I don't fancy Alijaz' or 'Jonny Depp' are missing the point. You don't get to choose with them. Even if you did like them, they simply wouldn't see you (unless you are a hot actress/model/dancer). So- your choices are limited by others' perceptions of leagues or 'compatibility' even if you yourself are quite open-minded.

[TheStoic]

Anyone really interested in this should check out the Psychology of Attractiveness podcast. Fascinating stuff.

Although there are some here who will call it 'evolutionary bollocks', so they should probably avoid it. They might accidentally hear something that doesn't fit their world view.

We need to face the fact that we are all just animals. Some more sophisticated than others, but animals nonetheless.

[ChippyOikInAWowGuna]

oooh, link to that please!!! I listened to a podcast about dating and it was depressing but yet at the same time, there was another study to show that what men wanted and what men got differed wildly and that it was women who 'got' what they wanted, ie, a parnter within five years of their own age.

(this study may have been applicable to first time rounders though)

[TheStoic]

Not sure how to link a podcast Chippy, but think it can be found here:

www.robertburriss.com/podcast.html

I heard one recently that said (from memory) people tend to be drawn to those they feel are in their 'league' because the chances of them successfully scoring with that person are higher.

It doesn't determine who you find attractive, but it does influence who you will approach and try to connect with...because who wants to waste time on someone less likely to reciprocate the interest?

Most humans understand there are such things as 'leagues'.

[fishfingersinmysandwiches]

We need to face the fact that we are all just animals. Some more sophisticated than others, but animals nonetheless.

I agree with this Stoic. Although I also do think that there is depth and breadth within that statement too, and that as humans we can choose to rise above some of our more base instincts.

I find the league idea depressing although I do think there is an element of truth to it too. Some of us are in denial perhaps - me included

I was talking to my friend the other day, smarting over a rejection as you do, and she very kindly went round the houses talking some psychobabble about silverback gorrillas, but what she basically meant was that she felt I was choosing men who were out of my league. It hurt, not going to lie.

[TheStoic]

As humans we can choose to rise above some of our more base instincts

Absolutely. Thank goodness!

But to deny those instincts exist, or to call them 'shallow', is naive at best, ignorant at worst. Might as well be arguing that the earth is flat.

I'm personally realistic about where I sit on the physical attractiveness scale. When it comes to intelligence, or humour, or curiosity or attitude, I don't think anyone is 'out of my league'. But on physical appearance? Of course they are. I couldn't care less! I'm comfortable in my own skin.

[Twinklestein]

Donatella

You've changed your tune. Yesterday you said this friend:

ALWAYS goes for women who are quietly spoken, intelligent, blonde and very petite. He could meet the most amazing woman in the world and if she was overweight he would not find her attractive.

Always implies multiple times - repeatedly, continually.

It now turns out that he's been married twice and 'hibernated' in between.

If you've expressed yourself poorly to give an inaccurate picture that's on you. Why mention him in the context of the other 90% of the men who know who are apparently twats?

I have taken time out of my day to help you as you have quite a distorted perception of men.

Rather than appreciating that you're playing the victim.

Good luck.

[Twinklestein]

Evolutionary psychology is a pseudo-science whose reductive and simplistic claims do not stand up to rigorous analysis, nor can be tested by hard science.

The narrow account of human nature it provides fails to engage with its true complexity and multiplicity.

In some ways it represents old religious determinism in a new cod-genetic guise.

[donnattella]

No, I've not expressed myself poorly at all.

We were discussing attraction and so I only spoke of his attraction, not his merits as a human being. I only brought those up when you called them into question by calling him a "shit man" without knowing anything about him other than his sexual preferences for small blonde women.

He has dated more than two women. He dated me actually when he was 15. He also didn't date the very first person he met after coming out of hibernation. I got him on a dating site actually and know exactly what his type is. And ALL of them looked, spoke and shared the same characteristics and he would not feel attraction outside of those limits.

I have spoken of men who are twats, and of men who are great men also - who still have certain things they are attracted to. Because I don't feel having a "type" makes you shallow.

You've just assumed that because he fancies a certain type of person he must be a shit person -which is just as judgemental as the men who cast aside women based on one thing.

I do have a poor perception of most men, actually of most humans, but that's not what this thread is about. This thread is about whether or not people naturally gravitate towards people of roughly the same level of attractivenesss, which the vast majority of people on here, as well as social science studies agrees with as a concept in human nature.

I think your upset these prejudices and shallow instant judgements exist in the world but it's not my fault for creating them. Pretending they are not there would not make me a better person.

Of course I agree with you that qualities are more important over the long term, but I just feel no one sees those inner qualities at the very outset when choosing someone to divert romantic attentions to.

At the outset, everything is superficial. No knowledge of inner self is even really known. They look at a person and match them up based on how they look, speak, dress, walk and what job or general place in society they have to evaluate whether or not the person is a match. The inner self is revealed later.

If you don't think that's true, that's fine.

[Twinklestein]

The 'shit men' comment actually referred to the 90% you described at the beginning of the post.

I only commented on the two you mentioned because you highlighted them. Now it turns out you didn't mean it as it came out but you can't admit it. You're blaming me for not knowing this man's history, but how would I? I can only go on what you've written.

I suggest you did your friend a disservice by mentioning him in the same context as the twats you had previously described.

Why on earth you would think I would be 'upset' by the fact that shallow judgements exist I have no idea. I'm well aware shallow people exist, I grew up around them. But unlike you am not claiming that they account for 90% of men.

Perhaps your poor perception of men is influenced by the type of men around you. You come across as having quite a narrow range of experience.

[Lollipopgirl8]

Men say the most attractive ladies are those who don't know how attractive they are

[Lollipopgirl8]

I am socially not considered attractive apparently according to some study a few years ago! (black female, distinctive features like high cheekbones long natural hair, slim (10-12) but big boobs and hips, quite toned) but for some reason I attract alot of men both within my ethnic group and out.

Currently got the hots for a work colleague and Ive been told he really likes me too, he is a really hot Arab guy... Sadly can only look for now

[tiredmedic]

Lollipopgirl8 said at 19:23

"Men say the most attractive ladies are those who don't know how attractive they are."

Yes. Absolutely yes. OMG totally yes. There is no way I would have a chance with someone like, Oh I dunno, Holly Green (weather girl on South Today) and I wouldn't bother asking, but to me she comes across as, well a bit into herself (I am Aspergers so body language is a closed book to me) but some of the nurses I work with are to die for (and incidentally, my age group [56] and they have attractiveness by the bucketload....but I think we'd all agree, beauty and attractiveness ain't the same thing.

Ducks behind sofa, pulling on flak jacket and fumbling for another magazine......

[Frostycake]

The only time I think this is when I walk down the smarter streets of London. The men in London take my breath away. They have the deadly combination of looks, charm, intelligence, manners and know how to dress WELL. I am late forties now though so they don't even glance my way.

When I was young, nobody was out of my league though. I had my pick! I couldn't understand it as I was very unsophisticated and shy. I was very insecure and paid A LOT of attention to my looks to compensate.

I live in the Midlands in a backwater now and there are no attractive men around here. I think they quickly run over the county line into Cheshire or go down South.

[Lollipopgirl8]

I'm in midlands (Brum) too you can find some tasty men like my Arab Dr who is really hot! Having said that he loves going to London at weekends so I know what you mean

[Utterlyclueless]

There is nothing less attractive than someone who fancies themselves

[fishfingersinmysandwiches]

I dunno Clueless - personally I like a bit of confidence, a bit of swagger.

There's a fine line I think. Arrogance and narcissism are, of course, not attractive, but I can never find much passion for a man who stares at his feet, mumbles, and can't talk to me either. A confident, slightly cheeky (but still respectful) approach always makes me smile.

[Helmetbymidnight]

I think it's important that people, if not quite fancy themselves, but have a strong sense of self-worth.

[MadeMan]

Yeah confidence about yourself and how you look is good, but not if you're going to rub everyone's face in it, or use it to belittle others.

Fishing for compliments all the time, or constant self deprecation can get tiresome.

[ChippyOikInAWowGuna]

self-identity as well as or more than self-worth. just knowing who you are without going on about it, that that's valuable. that may seem like such a meaningless distinction but I sense a difference when it's coming at me.

[ChippyOikInAWowGuna]

I have a lot more respect for evolutionary psychology Twinklestein. Never seen it dismissed like that before! If it doesn't stand up to 'rigorous testing' (and I wouldn't know) i'd suggest that that's because human reactions are never going to be 100% predictable. At its core, it is what a bunch of people in a given set of circumstances are most likely to do, what is most likely to motivate them, or rather, most likely to motivate most of them. How can that be rigorously tested!? Most people, most of the time are generally motivated by x,y or z. Difficult to prove it in a laboratory but it doesn't mean that it isn't a really good clue to how most people will react to x, y or z. There'll always be exceptions but generally we aren't going to be the exception. Generally speaking the man we have our eye on is going to behave in a way that is predictable more times than he will react in a way that is atypical. So dis it as a non-science, but it's still a massive headsup that is really relevant to most people's lives.