I still can’t wrap my head around this. Like, when you were in a “higher league” or whatever, you might have met a man and thought “He’s sweet and funny and cute and I like him a lot, and if I was less of a catch myself, I’d settle for him, but since I think I can do better, I am going to pass.” What does better even mean? If you’re attracted to someone, you are.
Yes and they like me. I also have to meet with the Bishop before we get married. I am good looking but that is just genetics. I tend to go more for a personality match and sense of humor. I don’t want a trophy wife. Everyone’s looks fade over time, especially for women. You want someone that you feel completely comfortable with even during the worst of times.
If you find a lot of people attractive do you marry the first one? That seems like an odd concept, of all the variables I’d include I don’t think of timing as the most important one. If you don’t marry the first one how do you know it’s time to move on? Even if all you are looking for is someone who has a job and doesn’t beat you, you’ve still created a league.
On second thought just saying "“He’s sweet and funny and cute and I like him a lot” is a league unto itself. You just disqualified a whole bunch of potential partners by demanding some level of attractiveness and not settling for less.
So you’re saying, there’s hope. 
The best thing I can do at the moment is improve myself. Now going to the gym/pool, now wearing better-fitting clothes, now in a job with predictable income, now out of and recovering from a horrible family situation… Hopefully if I meet someone this time, I will be in much better shape.
And that’s ignoring the fact that my “10” is definitely not what society seems to think of as a “10”.
If you’re madly in love with somebody, entirely comfortable with them, compatible on nearly everything, really want to spend time with them and live with them: are you going to break up with them because they’re only #3 and you think you need to date – how many? 27? 512? – in the hope of finding somebody who’s fractionally better, and not even better according to your own preferences but according to the average bent of society at the moment?
It’s time to move on when you want to move on. Or when the other person does.
But everybody’s got different ideas of what’s attractive.
Not everybody thinks the same things are funny. Not everybody even rates being funny high on the list of what attracts them. Not everybody thinks the same looks are cute. Not everybody rates “cute” high on the list of what attracts them.
It’s not about leagues. It’s about finding the right fit for the individuals involved.
But it’s not an equal distribution. The women in the “get beat by your ugly poor alcoholic husband league” are not just a random shake of the dice from the “cute rich funny husband league”. Aim high because everyone has different ideas about what’s attractive seems like pretty poor advice. Saying that everyone has different ideas about some aspect of attraction and then using that to support that all attraction is random is really poorly thought out.
I think that a innate general preference for “young” is undisputed. On the other hand, a innate preference for “thin” is demonstrably false, since preferences in this regard vary widely from one culture to another and over time.
I didn’t say “aim high”. I said “go with somebody who attracts you, personally; and is attracted to you.” That’s got nothing to do with whether somebody else thinks they’re “high” or “low”.
I doubt much of anything is entirely undisputed.
Many people actually prefer someone near their own age; especially if we’re talking about actual relationships.
But the poster I was responding to was saying that basically there were guys she would have turned down when she was younger and more attractive and could do “better”, but now she’s not as attractive, so she’d consider dating them. It’s the shift I don’t get–once someone is “attractive”, why does it matter if they are the absolute most attractive you can hope to attract? Once you’ve hit “attractive”, it seems to me that it’s time to move on to determining the much more complicated issue of compatibility. I’m not going to turn down a person that I’ve found attractive and who is potentially highly compatible with me because later there might be a more attractive guy with the same chance of compatibility.
Because you’re less likely to find them attractive in the first place.
Sweet and funny and cute are the most important things, nobody’s going to dispute that. But why do you think they’re sweet and funny and cute? Does that come out of nowhere, completely internal, not influenced by the world around you? Obviously not.
That’s why it’s called “settling”
Dude.
You can’t talk about your fiancee/wife like this. It really doesn’t come across well.
I expect lots of people would dispute that. Some people (not me) seem to go for ‘rich and famous’. Others might pick e.g. ‘competent’, ‘honest’, ‘faithful’, ‘confident’, over ‘funny’ or ‘cute’. Some even seem to pick ‘aggressive’ over ‘sweet’.
And, yet again, not everyone agrees what’s funny, not everyone agrees who’s cute, and not everyone even agrees what’s sweet.
I don’t care how it comes across. This is a message board where you can express (most) of your views. The fact remains that my fiancee and I have incredible chemistry, tons in common and she is really attractive. I just happen to be better looking right now because she has a minor weight problem but I don’t care. We have a true relationship unlike the first 200+ other women that I went out with. We were talking about it last night and she started crying because she gained weight and we both tried to come up with some ways to make it better. I am not worried about it at all but she is a great public speaker and overall appearance is a component of that.
True. I’ll rephrase as sweet and funny and cute (cute to you, that is) are among the main criteria for most people.