The only thing more dangerous than a “by-and-large” statement is a “men-are-hardwired-to” statement, but here goes.
According to one theory (which makes sense to me but is probably far too simplistic), hetero men are hardwired to desire young-looking, thinner women because those physical attributes in Neanderthal times were consistent with women who had not yet given birth – and women with no previous children would be more likely to devote 100% of their maternal attention to the one you fathered with them, which gave your child a greater chance of surviving and thus your DNA a greater chance of propagating.
And yet, lots of guys go for MILF porn, BBWs and even “grannies.” God I love humanity. What was the topic again?
There are lots of exceptions. So many that assuming generalities will hold for any specific case is a bad idea.
Even within that list, definitions of most of those items vary. One person’s ‘good figure’ is another person’s ‘thin as a stick’. One person’s ‘nice disposition’ is another person’s ‘wishy washy’. One person’s ‘confidence’ is another person’s ‘arrogance’. One person’s ‘success’ is another person’s ‘never thinks of anything but work’. One person’s ‘status’ is somebody else’s ‘snob’. Not everyone has the same sense of humor. And there are plenty of women who either prefer short men, or don’t care all that much about height.
– Doreen, I don’t think the problems of the particular people you’re talking about are going to be solved by their asking out people who are less pretty. Their problem, as you describe them, is partly that they’re not looking for another human, but for a doll or a trophy with a certain type of looks; and partly that they’re not offering anything much for anyone, of any looks, to find interesting or helpful or enjoyable in them. If what somebody wants to do is sit around and complain, conventionally-pretty people won’t want to date them, and those who aren’t conventionally pretty won’t want to date them either – and if they do anyway, because they’ve been convinced they have to settle for jerks, the relationship’s unlikely to work out well for either party.
ETA: in evolutionary senses, fatter women would be preferred (and in many societies have been); they were more likely than thin women to have the reserves to bring a child to term. Through most of human prehistory and history, in most places, inability to get enough food was far more likely to be a problem than getting enough to put on enough fat to slow the person down.
Hmm. that makes sense, too. Maybe the “young/thin” preference theory was cooked up by some geneticist trying to excuse his ogling before his wife swatted him with a parasol.
In any case, I’m glad our DNA isn’t too much of a dictator to preclude desires for women of all shapes, sizes, colors and any number of other traits. Or men, for that matter.
No, I get that point. But I understand that point is not relevant to this debate.
Sure, not everyone has the same definition of what makes a person attractive. But there are clearly broad patterns, even if there are exceptions. Attractiveness is not a random phenomena. There are some people who are considered attractive by a billion people and some people who are considered attractive by a thousand people. And the people who are considered attractive by a billion people have a thousand times as many dating options.
And that’s the key argument that I (and other people) have been making. If you are interested in somebody who is also attractive to a billion other people, you need to ask yourself if you have a one in a billion attractiveness. Because you’re expecting that person to pick you out of the billion possibilities they have.
You yourself said that women are not just a prize. But your argument is based on treating them as if they are. Your suggestion that men should “try aiming at a particular person” is based on the mistaken assumption that women are just passive objects waiting for a man to notice them.
That’s not how it works. Women are looking for men just as actively as men are looking for women. So when you’re thinking about aiming at a particular person, you need to ask yourself if they’re aiming back at you. And if they aren’t, you’re just wasting your time.
I have never really thought of potential partners as being in leagues. However I did find I was dismissed as not worth the bother very early in the process, and very consistently.
Akaj, possibly cooked up by someone selling weight-loss diets.
Little Nemo:
of course it’s relevant to this debate. It means the supposed “leagues” don’t work, and don’t exist.
nobody’s got a billion possibilities; because nobody can remotely realistically meet and assess a billion people. (I’m also pretty dubious that you could get a billion people to agree on the relative attractiveness of other people.)
I thought I was using your own phrasing for the “aiming at”. On second reading, that’s less clear; though you do use that word, you’re saying not to “aim high”; which doesn’t necessarily imply that you’re recommending "aim"ing “low”.
In any case, I think I’ve made it entirely clear elsewhere in this thread that the other person has to also want you. And I don’t remotely see how my using that particular phrase negates my argument, which is that different people want different things, and therefore the whole categorization business doesn’t work.
– the question of mine which you didn’t answer, by the way, was the one asking why any woman should want to be with you if your attitude is that she’s not attractive (in whatever sense of the word) but you think you have to settle for her. Again, you’re not required to answer questions; I’m just pointing out that that’s not, IMO, an, uh, attractive attitude. I most certainly don’t mean that you should only try to date people who you, or your friends, or the media, has put in an arbitrary category of “10’s”. What I mean is that you should only try to date people who are attractive to you, personally. As individuals. Not as members of a “league” who you imagine have a billion other people to choose from.
Are you arguing against the metaphor or against the reality that it describes?
I’ll admit league’s probably not a good term. It certainly seems to upset some people. But banishing the term won’t change the reality that some people are more attractive than others.
I didn’t say that.
I said a person who is attractive to a billion people will have a thousand times as many options as a person who is attractive to a thousand people. Those proportions are going to be true regardless of what percentage of people are actually available in the potential dating pool.
The fact that the other person also has their own agency is the key factor in this whole debate. You say you understand this. But you haven’t addressed how it undermines your entire argument.
How can I possibly describe who Little Nemo would be attracted to? I’ve no idea. Ask Little Nemo.
Who people other than me are attracted to does sometimes seem to me to be completely random. I don’t suppose that it actually is. But my whole point is that it varies.
Yet again: I’m arguing that your metaphor does not describe reality; because people vary drastically in who they find attractive.
I would have thought that was quite clear by now.
Minor point: your math is off. A thousand times a thousand is a million, not a billion.
Major point: I don’t believe that a billion people will all agree on the relative attractiveness of other people.
I don’t see any way whatsoever that it undermines my entire argument.
My entire argument is that not everyone is attracted to the same people: that different people have different preferences. That argument assumes that everyone has their own agency. It doesn’t deny it.
Not in so many words. But you’ve said pretty clearly, it seems to me, that you think Jennifer Lawrence, and other people who you categorize as in her “league”, are more desirable to nearly everyone on the planet, including you, than anyone who you think would actually go out with you.
So maybe I should rephrase the question as, why should anyone go with you (at least with the intention of a long term relationship), if you really want to be with someone else if only you thought you’d have the chance to?
Sure, individual tastes vary. But there are general standards for what’s considered attractive. To deny this is to demonstrate a disconnection from all human history and culture.
You got me on that one. In my original post I had written a million. But I realized that a million was far underestimating the situation, so I switched it to a billion to make it more accurate. Then I forgot to adjust the rest of my figures. My bad.
Here’s a picture of two women. We’ll call them Mary and Jane. Now for your theory to work, Mary and Jane would have to be attractive to the same amount of people.
Do you think that’s true? Do you think the number of people who would consider Mary to be attractive is pretty much the same amount as the number of people who would consider Jane to be attractive? Or do you think that one of these women would be considered attractive by a much larger number of people?
Because if your answer is that one of these women would be considered more attractive by a much larger number of people then your argument is dead.
I’ve explained this to you. Several times.
Men and women both have agency in who they date. The reason I don’t date supermodels is not because I’ve chosen not to date them - or as you put it, aiming at them. It’s because I’m aware that my desire to date supermodels is worthless unless there’s a reason why supermodels would want to date me.
And here’s the thing you keep ignoring - the exact same thing is true for women. They’re making the same decisions that men are making. Sure, maybe most women would like to be dating Chris Hemsworth. But Chris isn’t going to date them. (Because he’s married. To this woman.)
Your whole argument is that average looking men should go after beautiful women. But you still haven’t explained - and you can’t explain - why we should expect beautiful women to go after average looking men. That’s the agency issue you keep avoiding.
I’m not saying that I’m going to “aim low” either. (And you’re telling me my metaphors are offensive.) I’m looking for somebody who’s at my relative level of attractiveness. She may not be Jennifer Lawrence but I’m not Chris Hemsworth. I’ll be choosing her for the same reasons she’ll be choosing me.
And the men who can’t accept that and insist that they won’t settle for any woman who is less than perfect - they’ll be incels.
Forget rating yourself as a romantic partner. How about as a friend? On a scale of 1 to 10, objectively speaking, how good a friend are you? Not like Facebook friend, like real life, hang out together and help each other out friend.
Next question: Would Jennifer Lawrence be your friend if you asked her?
The whole idea of leagues, of rating people numerically as a romantic partner, is just as silly.
A lot of this is a case of mistaking"what ought to be" with “what actually is.”
Some people seem to be arguing that because people *shouldn’t *be categorized by their appearance and desirable attributes, that they therefore aren’t categorized by their appearance and desirable attributes. When in fact they very often are.
For fun I just started looking up images of the husbands of all the famous female actresses and musicians I find attractive or who are famously beautiful. What I found was:
They are disproportionately likely to be handsome, but on average, not universally. Some are surprisingly plain. However,
They are universally in (at worst) pretty decent physical shape, even if their handsomeness level isn’t great and the ol’ hairline is in full retreat.
