Not interested or just out of your league?

Scanlas The 2nd

cantdecide wrote: »

I disagree. It could be said in the context of light hearted observation among groups of friends, IMO. It might be a cack-handed compliment to the bf for doing well for himself. I'm sure one partner being significantly easier on the eye than the other could lead to insecurity in some cases I think if one has already chosen to be with another, the idea of leagues, as single people perceive it, goes out the window.

Yea same thing happened to me, with a group of friends having laugh and one of them said I was out of my girlfriend's league. Think it was just a compliment to my girlfriend that she was doing well for herself.

rannerap

Yeah its mostly in jest, I don't take it too seriously . I feel very lucky to be with him,I wouldnt be with him so many years if I felt otherwise!

EdenHazard

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

There's no such thing as "out of your league", it doesn't make sense anyway. Your own level of attractiveness doesn't influence who YOU like, why would it be any different for a girl you like?

So Vanessa Hudgens(or insert any obvious hot person) is not out of our league? The reality is leagues do exist. How can you say they don't? Below average Guys getting hot girls is possible but its not the norm. These people normally have something which makes up for their looks, i.e money,reputation, status etc.

Pawwed Rig

EdenHazard wrote: »

So Vanessa Hudgens(or insert any obvious hot person) is not out of our league?

Ok I never heard of this girl but a quick wikipedia of her would say to me she is pretty but is involved in the Hollywood scene so would not consider her a long term prospect. Seems very focused on money and fashion which would bore me to tears. I have never seen any of the movies she's been in and wouldn't be inclined to watch them. So all in all no thanks but is she 'out of my league' as in better than me? Definitely No as I have achieved alot more academically than she has and have never screwed anyone over the way she seems to have a couple of times at least.

cantdecide

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Ok I never heard of this girl but a quick wikipedia of her would say to me she is pretty but is involved in the Hollywood scene so would not consider her a long term prospect. Seems very focused on money and fashion which would bore me to tears. I have never seen any of the movies she's been in and wouldn't be inclined to watch them. So all in all no thanks but is she 'out of my league' as in better than me? Definitely No as I have achieved alot more academically than she has and have never screwed anyone over the way she seems to have a couple of times at least.

Leagues work laterally, too. Not because they're not hot. They might think they're out of my league and maybe they might have reason to believe so but that doesn't mean the dis-attraction can't be mutual...

I always think of this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KE4HGlmtOcg

Wibbs

Broadly it seems "leagues" do exist to some degree. I've read a couple of studies over the years that show people generally tend to match up along leagues "rating", so fives tend to be with fives and nines with nines. However there is variability within that too so out of twenty couples you'd have some where this wasn't the case . One study I read came to the conclusion that in couples where the women were considered more physically attractive said women were apparently happier, compared to couples where the man was the more physically attractive. The theory being that men being more visual(or putting more store in that) and women less so and more concerned with consistency and support were happier because he was less likely to stray. I dunno, maybe. I do recall a mate who was going out with a noticeably handsome bloke was not the happiest in that relationship. She was much more paranoid about other women than she would normally be(and she had no reason to be in that case). I've seen that stuff with blokes, but less so IME. I also noticed her situation was commented upon way more than where the genders were reversed.

I would reckon that generally and IME you do find more couples were the guy is objectively less attractive physically than the other way around. And that's regardless of his status. Maybe cos of the aforementioned? That men are more concerned with physical looks, even if only slightly, whereas women are more concerned with "the whole package", so the looks are lesser a consideration?

Still I've seen both genders getting "fussy" and being restricted by it. Women waiting for a particular "Mr Right" with checklist in hand and men waiting for a swimwear model and both missing out on perfectly good relationships because of it. I suppose if someone concentrates more on "leagues" that's a danger.

Neeson

proteinhead wrote: »

yes i consider myself champions league i wouldn't go for someone that plays in league two

Ha.

proteinhead.

Neeson

proteinhead wrote: »

Ha.



Neeson you must be league two

That's a bit harsh. If its based on the English football league then that puts me three leagues below the best.

But isn't it true that people can gain promotion to another league over time. I will step up to the championship soon and finer women will be at my disposal.

Then I'll set my sights in the premier league. And from there try and qualify for the top 3/4 women in that league.

leggo

Suppose I'd be a Stoke, by that rationale: not pretty to look at, but gets consistent enough results to stay a threat to the big boys. And I can cause an upset on any given day (then also get slaughtered 4-0 on another). I'll avoid weaving a Jon Walters/double own goal extension into that metaphor... :pac:

seachto7

I'm like Southampton. Desperate to stay in the Premier League (the premier league trophy being the lady), while lads who are like Arsenal fritter their chances away.....

BOHtox

leggo wrote: »

Suppose I'd be a Stoke, by that rationale: not pretty to look at, but gets consistent enough results to stay a threat to the big boys. And I can cause an upset on any given day (then also get slaughtered 4-0 on another). I'll avoid weaving a Jon Walters/double own goal extension into that metaphor... :pac:

Great metaphor!

I suppose I'm QPR right now. Surrounded by great teams like Arsenal, Chelsea and Spurs etc. Performed way below their level until recently but only after spending a lot of money to get some average results.
Desperate to avoid relegation but occasionally can pull off a shock beating one of the big boys like Chelsea. :cool:

cantdecide

I have no idea what you lot are on about:D I can do car analogies if that helps!

EdenHazard

Hahah I like the metaphors. I'm guessing I'm a Hoffenhim. Rose up through the leagues in rapid succession, however have appeared to hit a limit despite initial optimism. For years recieved small attendances, but have seen a rapid surge in support but they'd still love to be bigger. Have some raw ingredients but reputation prevents them from truly attracting major players, with a few exceptions.
However they also receive a lot of negativity due to their transformation from small time nobodies to a mini Bayern Munich of sorts. Despite the appearence of affluence and wealth, hoffenheim still battle with their identity as a small time club and have yet to truly embrace their new identity(hahah not really sure on this but suits the metaphor) Finally may have to accept that they are where they are. Could probably make Champions League if they got their house in order, but unless they have a change of mentality will have to settle for mid table

EdenHazard

Srs though status wins out over aesthetics or wealth. Girls are obsessed with status, must be some evolutionary thing.

Take 2 examples, a good looking shy guy in college, or a popular average looking guy whose known and plays rugby. Whose gonna be with most girls during his time in college. The rugby guy clearly.

It also explains why Beyonce is with Jay Z. She could be with a rich, young good looking guy but is attracted to the status of Jay Z as a rap god.

cantdecide

EdenHazard wrote: »

Girls are obsessed with status, Take 2 examples, a good looking shy guy in college, or a popular average looking guy whose known and plays rugby. Whose gonna be with most girls during his time in college. The rugby guy clearly.

Pretty big generalisations there and maybe the rugby guy will be a crowd pleaser but he ain't probably getting too much of a look in with the bookworm with the tattoos so it's all relative.

EdenHazard wrote: »

It also explains why Beyonce is with Jay Z. She could be with a rich, young good looking guy but is attracted to the status of Jay Z as a rap god.

Did you hear Beyoncé and Jay Z named their kid Bejayzus?

jaffacakesyum

EdenHazard wrote: »

Srs though status wins out over aesthetics or wealth. Girls are obsessed with status, must be some evolutionary thing.

Take 2 examples, a good looking shy guy in college, or a popular average looking guy whose known and plays rugby. Whose gonna be with most girls during his time in college. The rugby guy clearly.

It also explains why Beyonce is with Jay Z. She could be with a rich, young good looking guy but is attracted to the status of Jay Z as a rap god.

Men are obsessed with big tits. Take two examples, a good looking girl with big tits or an amazing looking girl with small tits, who's gonna win?

:pac:

Lol seriously though, I know this is tGC so I won't pry too much and don't wanna be seen as that annoying b1cth who won't let the guys discuss how no hot girls will ever get with them and women are only after fame, status etc. but the big generalisations in here are hilarious.

EdenHazard

Explain why 'jocks' get the girls then despite having ugly aesthetics? They're not rich, but they have status.

jaffacakesyum

EdenHazard wrote: »

Explain why 'jocks' get the girls then despite having ugly aesthetics? They're not rich, but they have status.

I honestly don't know what you're talking about because in my experience the 'jocks' were always big muscular lads, 'conventionally' good looking in my school. They got a lot of attention from the girls. I didn't find them attracive myself because they were far too annoying but they were good looking. Equally the guys who weren't into sport but were good looking, funny, good craic, got the girls too. The only guys that didn't get the girls were the shy, introverted types. As you might've guessed, I went to a mixed school :pac:

Fast forward to college, and everybody gets the girls! Except me...:(:P

cantdecide

EdenHazard wrote: »

Explain why 'jocks' get the girls then despite having ugly aesthetics? They're not rich, but they have status.

Anybody can join a team and run with the pack. So you're more niche than those guys! All the chearleaders running off with the jocks is the way of the world since the world began. You just gotta look in other places to find the ones that are really worth a damn.

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

I honestly don't know what you're talking about because in my experience the 'jocks' were always big muscular lads, 'conventionally' good looking in my school. They got a lot of attention from the girls. I didn't find them attracive myself because they were far too annoying but they were good looking. Equally the guys who weren't into sport but were good looking, funny, good craic, got the girls too. The only guys that didn't get the girls were the shy, introverted types. As you might've guessed, I went to a mixed school :pac: Fast forward to college, and everybody gets the girls! Except me...:(:P

I'm that guy:o:P Some of us are like wine...we errr.... get older with age. Not really sure where I was going with that. Ima just gonna drink a bottle of gin and go to bed:p

Vito Corleone

Where the hell did all ye guys go to school? Jocks and cheerleaders!?

BOHtox

EdenHazard wrote: »

Hahah I like the metaphors. I'm guessing I'm a Hoffenhim. Rose up through the leagues in rapid succession, however have appeared to hit a limit despite initial optimism. For years recieved small attendances, but have seen a rapid surge in support but they'd still love to be bigger. Have some raw ingredients but reputation prevents them from truly attracting major players, with a few exceptions.
However they also receive a lot of negativity due to their transformation from small time nobodies to a mini Bayern Munich of sorts. Despite the appearence of affluence and wealth, hoffenheim still battle with their identity as a small time club and have yet to truly embrace their new identity(hahah not really sure on this but suits the metaphor) Finally may have to accept that they are where they are. Could probably make Champions League if they got their house in order, but unless they have a change of mentality will have to settle for mid table

:pac:

jaffacakesyum

Vito Corleone wrote: »

Where the hell did all ye guys go to school? Jocks and cheerleaders!?

For the record I was not the one who introducted the word 'jock' into this conversation They weren't called jocks in our school but there were definitely a group of obnoxious guys who were obsessed with sport and competition...the Irish equivolent of the jock :pac:

cantdecide

Vito Corleone wrote: »

Where the hell did all ye guys go to school? Jocks and cheerleaders!?

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

For the record I was not the one who introducted the word 'jock' into this conversation They weren't called jocks in our school but there were definitely a group of obnoxious guys who were obsessed with sport and competition...the Irish equivolent of the jock :pac:

We called them ruggers and gaa-heads! We were too busy smoking behind the bike sheds to get involved!

Fox_In_Socks

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

For the record I was not the one who introducted the word 'jock' into this conversation They weren't called jocks in our school but there were definitely a group of obnoxious guys who were obsessed with sport and competition...the Irish equivolent of the jock :pac:

Who did you hang out with? The greasers?

http://images2.fanpop.com/image/photos/9000000/the-greasers-the-outsiders-9073967-531-411.jpg

The beatniks?

http://media01.bigblackbag.net/18726/portfolio_media/lwsm_beatniks-lr_153.jpg

The ham radio enthusiasts?

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/11/15/article-0-160C14CF000005DC-561_468x343.jpg

:pac:


Leagues would have a certain amount of weight in certain circumstances. People who are on a similar wavelength, similar personalities/expectations and looks would go together.

But as regards some randomer that I don't know anything about except looks, then out of/in my league isn't exactly a phrase that I would use. They either are or aren't attracted to me. Same as I am not attracted to loads of people.

Wibbs

Wibbs wrote: »

I would reckon that generally and IME you do find more couples were the guy is objectively less attractive physically than the other way around. And that's regardless of his status. Maybe cos of the aforementioned? That men are more concerned with physical looks, even if only slightly, whereas women are more concerned with "the whole package", so the looks are lesser a consideration?

I had this argument with a woman before who agreed with you until I pointed out that she was rating guys on average around 4 and women on average around 6. We had a lot of time on our hands that day. :pac: Normalising ratings seperately for each gender and IMO it's close to even but I've spotted some odd little trends like skinny/normal-sized lads being with massive women but rarely the other way around, despite the fact that there's as many fat lads as fat women.



As for the whole idea of leagues, of course it's broadly true but with exceptions. I've got no right to be fussy based on my looks but I am but not in a "I'll only go out with an 8 or higher" kind of way, there's just certain things that instantly put me right off and I can think of at least 3 things with me that would put probably a majority of women off me straightaway.

ToxicPaddy

cantdecide wrote: »

All the chearleaders running off with the jocks is the way of the world since the world began.

Eh I was pretty good and successful at sports in school, never got any cheerleaders wanting to run off with me

Granted it was an all boys school.. :pac:

A very good quote about all the malarky reminds me of how little looks matter after say the initial first impressions:

90% if guys want to marry the stunning looking b*tch, however after 20 years they are just married to the b*tch.

Now while I don't agree with the phrasing necessarily, the logic behind it does seem sound and applies to both guys and girls.

If you're solely obsessed with your prospective partners looks, then you're a fool, because the traits that matter, personality, intelligence, are they decent in the sack (just joking!! ) are ignored and in a few years when the looks fade, and they do, you're left with a person who holds no attraction to you whatsoever cause unless you're a superficial gimp, you'll want more in a prospective partner that a nice ass and perfect bod.

After 5 mins of talking to a girl, no matter how good looking she is, if there is nothing behind that pretty facade, no personality, no ability to hold an interesting conversation, no sense of humour, I tend to get bored very quickly and move on.

While looks do make an initial first impression and get attention, they are far from the be all and end all. Any girl who thinks she is "out of my league" is obviously an idiot and not worth me wasting my time on!!

Thats just my 2c anyway

sharpey85

I used to hate/(envy) it when I saw an average looking guy with a beautiful looking girl. But then a few years back I though to myself, you know what fair play to him, because at one time in his life he had the bottle/confidence to approach her or get talking to her and thn ask her out or simply just click.

I reckon (alcohol excluded) at least 80% of men do not approach women because of the "league" status.

Another thing, when you see a couple together and you judge them by their looks, and you automatically assume because one is more attractive than the other, the lesser attractive must be rich or high powered etc. Sometimes you know it is just love why their together. Look at the Beckhams. Victoria was undoubtedly the more successful/high profile when they first met, but the tide changed and David is (I'd say nearly unprecedented) phenomenom who could clearly have anyone he wants. Yet the strong bond/love they developed years ago seems to unbreakable.

Neeson

Well we don't know what injunctions there are. Wasn't beckham sniffing that loos ones?

ToxicPaddy

ToxicPaddy wrote: »

After 5 mins of talking to a girl, no matter how good looking she is, if there is nothing behind that pretty facade, no personality, no ability to hold an interesting conversation, no sense of humour, I tend to get bored very quickly and move on.

The good looking guy has everyone looking at him, but the thoughtful and interesting guy has people talking to him. In twenty years, people will stop looking, but they won't stop talking.:)

I'm an odd one in that I'm never attracted to the obviously good looking guy, its always the quiet, less obvious one that gets my attention, probably because I'm quiet myself.

SarCircle

Just been reading this thread, it's very interesting!

IMO leagues exist when dating....but they're very subjective so redundant really. I also think that they only matter when you don't really like someone.

For example, there are guys who I've known through school/work/friends or who I've dated that I haven't been interested in, and who I've rejected....only to see them later with a girl who's prettier/more successful than I am. Those girls clearly liked them and disagreed with my opinion.

Similarly, someone who I was recently interested in had no interest in me as a girlfriend and I sort of put it down to him being out of my league...then I see him with a girl who I wouldn't consider as attractive/successful as I am. He clearly disagrees.

Also, think about your groups of friends. You're not all attracted to the same people. I've met men who I thought were the bees knees and my friends just think meh. And vice versa.

Also how do you assess a league? People prefer different qualities in a partner and to different degrees. For example, I would consider someone who is very intelligent or who is very well educated as being in a high league whereas a friend of mine considers that anyone who plays rubgy is instantly in a higher league.

This sort of thing happens all the time...leagues are entirely subjective and I think that when you really like someone it doesn't even enter your head. When you really really like someone you don't assess their qualities...I think when you start thinking in terms of leagues you don't really have a connection with someone.

ToxicPaddy

SarCircle wrote: »

Just been reading this thread, it's very interesting!

IMO leagues exist when dating....but they're very subjective so redundant really. I also think that they only matter when you don't really like someone.

For example, there are guys who I've known through school/work/friends or who I've dated that I haven't been interested in, and who I've rejected....only to see them later with a girl who's prettier/more successful than I am. Those girls clearly liked them and disagreed with my opinion.

Similarly, someone who I was recently interested in had no interest in me as a girlfriend and I sort of put it down to him being out of my league...then I see him with a girl who I wouldn't consider as attractive/successful as I am. He clearly disagrees.

Also, think about your groups of friends. You're not all attracted to the same people. I've met men who I thought were the bees knees and my friends just think meh. And vice versa.

Also how do you assess a league? People prefer different qualities in a partner and to different degrees. For example, I would consider someone who is very intelligent or who is very well educated as being in a high league whereas a friend of mine considers that anyone who plays rubgy is instantly in a higher league.

This sort of thing happens all the time...leagues are entirely subjective and I think that when you really like someone it doesn't even enter your head. When you really really like someone you don't assess their qualities...I think when you start thinking in terms of leagues you don't really have a connection with someone.

I do agree with some points, mainly about everyone having their own opinions of what's attractive and what's not. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and that should be encouraged. Its society that has been telling us for years what's a stereotypical attractive person and what's not. I like to see people not following the crowd and being an individual.

However, I don't agree with this whole league thing.

Sometimes its down to simple geography and economics that determine whether a person plays a particular sport or can afford a decent education and various other factors. Putting a person in a "league" just because they don't fit a particular category is a bit limited an narrow minded.

I know people who don't have a degree but are some of the most intelligent people I know. I always have fascinating conversations with them on a variety of subjects and have learned a great deal from them, yet they were never afforded the luxury of going to college as they had to go out and get a job as soon as they finished school to help support the family due to one or both parents having health issues or simply being from a large family where getting by on a day to day basis took precedent over a attaining degree.

Again, sports are the same, the school I went to was a major GAA school, soccer was the 2nd sport and everything else took the back seat to those. Finding a rugby player in that school was near to impossible. So your friend would class everyone in that school as not being in the same league as a person who does, because they don't play that sport, kinda small minded imo, no offence, but I think you can see where I'm coming from about the whole league thing.

EdenHazard

Leagues are based on 'looks', not intelligence or success hence why Bill Gates would be considered punching above his weight if he was married to some 25 year old victoria secret model.

1ZRed

EdenHazard wrote: »

Leagues are based on 'looks', not intelligence or success hence why Bill Gates would be considered punching above his weight if he was married to some 25 year old victoria secret model.

Here, Eden, you seem so obsessed with looks it's unreal. You actually come across as a very shallow person. There's more to everyone than *just* looks. Nobody is going to want to spend their lives with someone purely based on how attractive they are, there's more to them like their personality and character, etc.

Being hot as all fuck will make you very happy in the short run, but if you've nothing to back it up, you'll be very unhappy in the long run as no one will stick you.

Learn to develop yourself besides what you look like and you'll be sorted and you won't be complaining. There's nothing more to it.

EdenHazard

I agree, but what I'm saying is when we talk about leagues its not based on intelligence or social status, its centered around looks, having wealth/status/fame etc. will help you rise above your league but they don't determine your league. You even alluded to leagues in another thread when you were giving me advice.

TBH I don't see the world based on looks and appearance anyway, I think society does though

1ZRed

EdenHazard wrote: »

I agree, but what I'm saying is when we talk about leagues its not based on intelligence or social status, its centered around looks, having wealth/status/fame etc. will help you rise above your league but they don't determine your league. You even alluded to leagues in another thread when you were giving me advice.

No, I can up my league by using my wit and having the laugh. My social status, wealth, or whatever doesn't come into it. And you know what? I do quite alright. That's just you finding scape goats by blaming it on girls being mad after wealth and status and holding nothing else as highly.

I alluded to what leagues in that other thread? I'm kind of drunk and I do not remember

Handsome Bob

For me, worrying about this kind of stuff is something you just don't need. You've no idea what someone thinks of you, but funnily enough I'd be willing to wager that if you are the kind of person that worries too much about it, that you'll only end up projecting that anxiety about your image and be a self fulfilling prophecy of sorts.

I'm not sure if that makes sense, I'm only up.

EDIT There are ways to improve your self image anyway. For one, broaden your social circles. The resource you're using right now, the internet, makes this more than doable. I always found that it's difficult to grow if you're meeting the same people week in, week out. It just makes it harder to break the image people associate with you. Secondly, don't make the sole intention of your nights out "scoring". Women can tell if this is your game, and many don't like it TBH, especially if they see you going from one to the other.

cantdecide

S. De Sousa wrote: »

Secondly, don't make the sole intention of your nights out "scoring". Women can tell if this is your game, and many don't like it TBH, especially if they see you going from one to the other.

There's a lot of ways of skinning this cat. Maybe a lot of people reading this thread are using it as a way of finding the courage to try and score the hot chicks. Maybe others have traits or behaviours that stop them from seeking the things that might make them truly happy.

I've learned about myself that I wouldn't let someone being in a higher league ever stop me from approaching them if I thought they seemed friendly and interesting. Especially if I know them IRL. I'm lucky in that I'm really only interested in nice and friendly ladies anyway. I wouldn't be interested in approaching someone just because they're hot.

I plucked up the courage to ask out an old friend of mine before Christmas and let's say if she had said yes (which she didn't:/) there would definitely have been lots of mutterings about leagues. She's such a really lovely person that I would have been kicking myself if I didn't say something sooner or later. She was really sweet about it as I knew she would be so no regrets.

In other words there very well might be a time and a place for leagues but you should never let them get between two people who may make each other very happy.

Lightbulb Sun

karaokeman wrote: »

Glad to see so many people agree the "out of your league" ideology is fantasy.

I agree it is rare that women you may find stunning are single, unless (and it can happen) you first meet that stunning woman pretty soon after a breakup (and it has to be soon), you just may get lucky.

+1

Make that move fast. From experience and a very recent one, you don't want to be the guy that had a chance and didn't take it. There was mutual attraction and still is.

I'm not saying that something might never happen with said person, but when you're in love and you lose out like I did recently it's crushing stuff.

dvpower

EdenHazard wrote: »

Leagues are based on 'looks', not intelligence or success hence why Bill Gates would be considered punching above his weight if he was married to some 25 year old victoria secret model.

If Bill Gates got together with a 25yo victoria secret model, I'd probably think he'd let himself down.

dvpower

dvpower wrote: »

If Bill Gates got together with a 25yo victoria secret model, I'd probably think he'd let himself down.

He'd certainly let me down.

karaokeman

Lightbulb Sun wrote: »

+1

Make that move fast. From experience and a very recent one, you don't want to be the guy that had a chance and didn't take it. There was mutual attraction and still is.

I'm not saying that something might never happen with said person, but when you're in love and you lose out like I did recently it's crushing stuff.

Cheers Lightbulb Sun.

I'm not saying you were suggesting this, just putting it out there (as I'm the OP of this thread and some might be curious). I had no intentions of writing this thread as a mild PI, its a discussion. I'm not interested in one particular girl at the moment, but every time I'm shot down I quickly learn to move on to the next one. It might be because I've been in university the last year and a half and I've met so many women, much more than I did in secondary school, so its easy to go from one to another.

I have of course been too late to make the move, that's why I was making the recommendation to others here. I do agree that if you end up with the hottest most physically perfect woman on the planet, it will still stagnate if she has no personality, no humour and no chemistry with you. That said I do become attracted to some conventionally unattractive women, and then there's others that are more attractive by mainstream standards I also find attractive. For example I think Emma Watson is overrated and Denise Milani is underrated but many will disagree, and that's fine with me, variety is the spice of life.

EdenHazard

S. De Sousa wrote: »

For me, worrying about this kind of stuff is something you just don't need. You've no idea what someone thinks of you, but funnily enough I'd be willing to wager that if you are the kind of person that worries too much about it, that you'll only end up projecting that anxiety about your image and be a self fulfilling prophecy of sorts.

I'm not sure if that makes sense, I'm only up.

EDIT There are ways to improve your self image anyway. For one, broaden your social circles. The resource you're using right now, the internet, makes this more than doable. I always found that it's difficult to grow if you're meeting the same people week in, week out. It just makes it harder to break the image people associate with you. Secondly, don't make the sole intention of your nights out "scoring". Women can tell if this is your game, and many don't like it TBH, especially if they see you going from one to the other.

Adopting this mentality. Went out last night and had my most fun in ages. The way I see it especially if you're shy, unless your model good looking(i.e lachowski, channing tatum) girls aren't gonna come up to you. I'm just accepting that when I don't pull its not my looks, or lack of but just the type of personality I have. I only think of pulling to give me confidence, tbh I don't actually give a **** about the actual kissing.

jaffacakesyum

EdenHazard wrote: »

Adopting this mentality. Went out last night and had my most fun in ages. The way I see it especially if you're shy, unless your model good looking(i.e lachowski, channing tatum) girls aren't gonna come up to you. I'm just accepting that when I don't pull its not my looks, or lack of but just the type of personality I have. I only think of pulling to give me confidence, tbh I don't actually give a **** about the actual kissing.

How old are you do you mind me asking? You're coming across as quite immature and insecure. And I'm not saying that to be mean I'm just trying to understand...

Especially the bit in bold is completely wrong.

EdenHazard

Well thanks for ruining my defence mechanism ha, I'm 19

Galwayguy35

I don't think someone has to have film star looks for a woman to approach them, I've no idea who the 2 people mentioned are but I assume they are actors or boyband members or something.

Aren't most of those boyband lads just pretty boy types anyway, I would imagine any woman over 25 would prefer a more manly type of guy.

My last gf was the one who asked me out so it does happen.

Daveysil15

I think location plays a part too. A woman who you might think is way out of your league here, could be completely average somewhere else. In Russia for example, the women out number the men by about 3 to 1, so the whole league thing is probably not an issue for the guys there as they'd have their pick of the litter. Someone with plenty of options can afford to be picky.

Fox_In_Socks

Daveysil15 wrote: »

I think location plays a part too. A woman who you might think is way out of your league here, could be completely average somewhere else. In Russia for example, the women out number the men by about 3 to 1, so the whole league thing is probably not an issue for the guys there as they'd have their pick of the litter. Someone with plenty of options can afford to be picky.

I think there are more women than men in Russia, but not 3:1. I think it's poor health/alcohol abuse that contributes to fewer men and these factors would impact on middle-aged+ men. I think the younger you are in Russia, the closer the gender split.

Completely off topic.

cantdecide

Well I've read anecdotal evidence in these hallowed pages about a discernible lack of available men in the streets (and clubs) of Dublin. Result of the recession they reckon. I don't know about that though.

Daveysil15

Fox_In_Socks wrote: »

I think there are more women than men in Russia, but not 3:1. I think it's poor health/alcohol abuse that contributes to fewer men and these factors would impact on middle-aged+ men. I think the younger you are in Russia, the closer the gender split.

Completely off topic.

I don't see how its completely off topic, and the demographic imbalance is more to do with the amount of men that were killed in wars.

TheUsual

Daveysil15 wrote: »

In Russia for example, the women out number the men by about 3 to 1.

Daveysil15 wrote: »

I don't see how its completely off topic, and the demographic imbalance is more to do with the amount of men that were killed in wars.

Nonsense.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Russia

"Sex Ratio.
15-64 years : 0.92 male(s)/female (male 48,864,763 / female 53,048,315)"

So about the same as every other country on the planet.