"Out of my league"

Wibbs

Earthhorse wrote: »

Is that a biological thing or a social construct? i.e. we expect people of similar attractiveness to pair off (all other things being equal). I'm denying the phenomenon, merely whether there is anything biological too it (impossible to tell with only 20 people).

Quite a few studies with bigger numbers report the same thing. An indication that it's more than a social construct is an interesting study I read not so long ago that too pictures of western men and women to an amazon tribe and vice versa and asked them to rate the people by attractiveness. The majority of the time a man or woman considered better looking than others was picked up on by quite different cultures. So the sex symbol of the tribe was seen as the best looking by western types too. It's likely its biological. At least in long term pairings. Good looking people are good looking above cultural pressures for a number of reasons. Reproductive fitness being the biggy. Good looking people tend to have symmetrical faces and bodies, which is an outward sign of both good genes and good development in the womb and beyond. This is good as a potential partner. Good looking women with narrow waist and wider hips(there's even a ratio) are more fertile than women with waist and hips the same. Taller men live longer. Richer men can provide more resources to a woman and any offspring. Women's selection processes are generally more subtle, complex and discerning. They have to be. These are very basic triggers, but they're there. In any case culture springs from these selection pressures for the most part.

Someone with the highest "value" you can get with a subtly different immune system is the best match we subconsciously go for and gives any offspring the best chance of success. Of course upbringing and culture add more complication to the mix. Even hormonal signaling is disrupted by the pill and can cause problems of some studies are to be believed.

Now it makes sense in a long term for a man to pick the most reproductively fit woman he can get. This level depends on his reproductive fitness. A low value male is going to find it harder than a high value male. Culture notwithstanding. Same for a woman, though as her status is more down to what she's born with it's harder to move upwards.

Of course people differ as individuals so there are plenty of exceptions.

Well, social value is definitely a social construct and again,

Yes and no. Social constructs don't come from nowhere though and those same constructs pressure selection.

I wonder what the numbers on this actually are. We all remember the rich old man with the young beautiful woman but if we were to run numbers on all billionaires, or millionaires, I wonder what the disparity would be? My guess is that we would see an increase in the number of "mismatches" (lookswise) but not as much of an increase as you might think.

I'd say high enough though. Rich men have more of a pool to choose from for a start. They also have more choices to leave too. I did read one stat that suggested rich men's first wives tend to be close enough in age to them, but the second wife is tends to be at least 10 years younger than the first.

It's fascinating stuff though regardless.

Earthhorse

Wibbs wrote: »

Good looking people tend to have symmetrical faces and bodies, which is an outward sign of both good genes and good development in the womb and beyond.

Oh no. My top and bottom half look nothing alike!

Taller men live longer.

To a point that's true.

A low value male is going to find it harder than a high value male.

Only because he doesn't get to use it as often.

I may have used this joke before

Of course people differ as individuals so there are plenty of exceptions.

Well, yes, and I don't deny the patterns you identify exist, I would just query to what degree? It's easy deconstruct things, measure each individual trait; reconstructing them is when it gets messy.

Yes and no. Social constructs don't come from nowhere though and those same constructs pressure selection. I'd say high enough though. Rich men have more of a pool to choose from for a start. They also have more choices to leave too. I did read one stat that suggested rich men's first wives tend to be close enough in age to them, but the second wife is tends to be at least 10 years younger than the first.

What about the rich men who don't have a more beautiful wife (than expected)? They're the ones that interest me. Is it because they don't want one or can't get one? I'd say it's the latter, indicating that it's more to do with the sum of someone's attributes than a few stand out traits. In a world where everyone can provide for themselves (which is the world most of us live in) attributes such as intelligence, sense of humour, kindess etc., and which don't have any social value per se are far more valuable.

Red Hand

brianthebard wrote: »

For those who feel class issues are a reason why people would be out of your league-may I interest you in socialism? All class conflict can be boiled down to economic processes, and there's no reason to feel someone who earns/owns more is above you.

(this was all said in an odd sing song voice in my head btw, not sure why)

What class of a partner did Marx engel up with?

*Groan*

Wibbs

Earthhorse wrote: »

Oh no. My top and bottom half look nothing alike!

Only because he doesn't get to use it as often.

I may have used this joke before

Oh god.... :pac:

Well, yes, and I don't deny the patterns you identify exist, I would just query to what degree? It's easy deconstruct things, measure each individual trait; reconstructing them is when it gets messy.

Very true.

What about the rich men who don't have a more beautiful wife (than expected)? They're the ones that interest me. Is it because they don't want one or can't get one? I'd say it's the latter, indicating that it's more to do with the sum of someone's attributes than a few stand out traits. In a world where everyone can provide for themselves (which is the world most of us live in) attributes such as intelligence, sense of humour, kindess etc., and which don't have any social value per se are far more valuable.

Oh I would agree. Two rich guys and one is better looking or one is more emotionally stable, then they will have more success. It is the sum of the parts. Very much. So a very together presentable, emotionally balanced man is going to have more choices than a guy who just happens to be rich. No mistake. Same for women. There are women I've met that if you look at a photo you would be put off, but were seriously attractive as women in the flesh, because of that sum of attributes.

brianthebard

Jeremiah 16:1 wrote: »

What class of a partner did Marx engel up with?

*Groan*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jenny_von_Westphalen

A professor's daughter of aristocratic stock. And they lived happily together with their kids, regularly getting bailouts from Engels. (yes I saw the pun, but do you really want me to play along? :pac: )

Red Hand

brianthebard wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jenny_von_Westphalen

A professor's daughter of aristocratic stock. And they lived happily together with their kids, regularly getting bailouts from Engels. (yes I saw the pun, but do you really want me to play along? :pac: )

No, you don't have to play along....


...actually, it says there that she was Prussian, like Marx. So you could say that they were often very Prussed for money and had a guardian Engel to bail them out.







Ahhhh....that's better! I'll get my coat...

brianthebard

Jeremiah 16:1 wrote: »

No, you don't have to play along....


...actually, it says there that she was Prussian, like Marx. So you could say that they were often very Prussed for money and had a guardian Engel to bail them out.







Ahhhh....that's better! I'll get my coat...

Oooh, I loled, more than I should've. Well done good sir!

coffee_cake

brianthebard wrote: »

Fair enough. Yay for being happy with current bf though.

Blissfully! Never met anyone like him before.

cuckoo

partyguinness wrote: »

My girlfriend thinks I am out of her league and so do her parents..!!

That sentence saddens me. People's parents should be thinking that their child is the sun, moon and the stars. Your girlfriend sounds like she's really doing well for herself, and i'm glad that it comes across in your post that you think that too because if she has her parents telling her other people are out of her league, well, she had a tricky starting point on some aspects of self confidence.

While I don't think parents should give their children unrealistic expectations, or too much pressure to succeed/snag a 'high status' mate - I really do believe they should be their children's cheerleaders. We all want to be able to go home to mammy and daddy after a bad break up, to be given some tea and biscuits and told 'ah, well, you're too good for them anyway...there there'.

leahyl

likely_lass wrote: »

i dont think id consciously think "hes out of my leauge" but its that thing when you know you would never "go for it". does that make any sense?

Ya that's how i feel - i've liked someone for ages but never in a million years would i make a move but it's for different reasons...... As you said i just wouldn't "go for it"

andyred

Wow this post has really opened my eyes. So all these years I thought I was'nt the best looking guy in the world and it turns out it was actually the opposite....women arent approaching me because they are too intimidated by my good looks! I gotta start taking advantage of this starting tomorrow!

The Saint

andyred wrote: »

Wow this post has really opened my eyes. So all these years I thought I was'nt the best looking guy in the world and it turns out it was actually the opposite....women arent approaching me because they are too intimidated by my good looks! I gotta start taking advantage of this starting tomorrow!

Ha nice. I like your style. I'm going to start thinking like that. The reason they're not approaching me is because of my intimidating good looks and looking windswept and interesting. Yeah, that's it. Nothing to do with me.

pow wow

brianthebard wrote: »

Do girls/wimmins/ladies here ever think this about a guy?

No. Not because I think I'm fabulous but I think we're all people y'know...and if you like someone then why not? Someone has to be with them!

brianthebard

You are fabulous though darling! That's a good point though, deceptively simple too.

pow wow

brianthebard wrote: »

You are fabulous though darling! That's a good point though, deceptively simple too.

You'll get a reputation if you're not careful! Simple is good in affairs of the heart, complication is overrated.

brianthebard

What sort of reputation?

pow wow

Lothario of the Ladies Lounge.

brianthebard

Is that a good thing?

Dudess

Man-ho of the Ladies' Lounge? Eh... yeah!!!