What's the truth on a woman being out of a man's league?
Just curious to see if this is as accurate as it's been said to be since the beginning of time. I've heard both sides of it. I've heard with enough confidence there is no such thing and I've heard the opposite, that no amount of confidence will win the girl. My experience personally has always been zero so I'm on the accurate side of the statement pretty much. Any thoughts?
There's no such thing as a "dating league". People are selective, but the nature of that selectivity depends on the individual. For some social status is of primary importance. If you don't boost their social status they'll move on. For others, its do you get along, do your personalities mesh well. For others, its life goals - want kids yesterday, or don't want any ever? For others, its dating someone who is self supporting and not an abusive psycho. It can feel like a rigid classification if a lot of girls seem to have similar values.
There’s no such thing as a “dating league”. People are selective, but the nature of that selectivity depends on the individual.
Exactly this. I can't deal with anymore "rating" of people's attractiveness, as daily seen on Reddit and the such. Beauty, attractiveness, and overall interest a person generates is highly (if not solely) dependent on said interest's other end.
There is something deeply flawed in trying to put people into small, numbered boxes.
The big secret is that there's no flowchart that describes all womans' behaviour.
No doubt
The best way to speak to women is to treat them like people.
Yes I have read this and heard it
no amount of confidence will win the girl.
Not everyone is attracted to everyone just like not everyone likes every flavour of food. A lot of it is about being in the right place & right time.
No amount of confidence will reverse the opinion of someone who is fundamentally not attracted to you. Zero confidence is externalized through observable behaviours that will deter people who would otherwise be attracted to you.
If you want a loving relationship your best bet is to expand your social circles. Spending time with friends, meeting their friends, and making new friends. Join a hobby club or a team sport. The person you meet through friends is probably gonna be more compatible with you than the person you matched on tinder for superficial reasons.
My two cents: Imo the question is deeply flawed. "Win a girl" and "being out of someone's league" are assumptions that prevent you from reaching a rational answer. It is like asking "which color makes me look more like a french planet?" It just does not make sense. My reasoning is that (as others pointed out) a girl is not something you win, because relationships were never a game. Nobody talks like this about friends, or how to "win" your brother's trust and friendship. It is a made up "hustler rat" mindset that has permeated through the "winner-loser" trope, and prevents people from seeing the opposite sex as a fellow human being. So then leagues are a deformation of people's personal compatibility and preferences. Someone "out of your league" could at most be interpreted as "lack of compatible lifestyle, goals, interests, and ideals". And even those factors in a person change over time as we grow and alter our interests. Sometimes we like calm people around us, sometimes we prefer someone that pulls us out of our comfort zone, or listens and is attentive, reflexive, or conscious about a topic we are also worried about, and so we relate to each other through our way of thinking. And then very often we even fall or become infatuated with the idea of someone that we built in our heads, which seems to happen far too often.
As some other commenters said, the more you interact and show interest and care for people, the more they will surprise you and the more likely you will find meaningful connections, maybe even a relationship. People make the relationship the goal and forget about the people, turning human contact into an empty experience.
This feels like a myth perpetuated by Hollywood, or a lot of media in general. You hang out with enough people you'll click with one of them regardless of how wealthy you are, or how handsome or beautiful they are. The exception are those who only look at partners materialistically, hence the full circle back to materialistic Hollywood/media fictions.
The issue I have with "leagues" is that by assigning them you are essentially reducing your potential dating pool because of an assumption. The whole point of flirting and getting to know someone is to evaluate your compatibility with each other. You can't know whether you are someone's exact type without interacting with them.
I've been surprised enough times by which women do and don't find me attractive that I know better than to make any assumptions.
Amen
I’ve always been surprised as to the wide array of ppl whose type I am. And obviously the opposite.
Depends on how you define the "league". Most people tend to think this is looks. For others, is wealth. For others, status, or a combination of all of those, or something else entirely. And the reality is that no two people have the exact same standards, so exactly what's acceptable and desirable will vary. You will always have averages and outliers within whatever you arbitrarily decide makes your league, and so will others.
There are different leagues. Men typically focus on looks first then other things like personality.
Women typically look for other things first, and looks are second or third or lower depending on the woman.
A guy on a first date might think the girl is out of his league, based on looks. But the girl might think he's out of her league due to socioeconomic standing and education/intellect or humor. Even if he's a bit funny looking or overweight, that can actually add to his charisma if he's little confident.
Guys think girls want gym-bod, girls actually want dad-bod. Because girls see gym-bod and think he's a muscle-bound idiot who spends all his freetime at the gym. Dad-bod is way better because that means he's not hyperfocused about being away from home during all his free time. Plus snuggles are nicer. Dad-bods don't mean weaker either, just look at strong-man competitions.
Obviously this is generalized based on conversations I've had with my wife after reading articles or topics that arise. YMMV.
Women typically look for other things first, and looks are second or third or lower depending on the woman.
Last 20 years kinda proving this wrong tbh... Women go for looks as much as men a least for casual
When marriage is on the table looks still matter but class and status are likely more important more so for women tho
I have a dad bod but want a fit bod in all honesty. Feels better to show when at the beach or pool
In my eyes, it's not a matter of league, but type.
I can speak personally, I like the bimbo look. I would like the women I'm sleeping with to look like bimbos. The problem is that women who look like bimbos are not guys like me. To be fair, I'd probably won't be attracted to them beyond the kink of the bimbo look. On my side, when I speak with such women typically I don't have the confidence I would have when speaking to women "of my type".
This is where I get full of myself: And I know that it's not a matter of "out of my league". I'm aware of multiple women who hit on me. Some are substantially younger than me. I know ther are more women I wasn't even aware at the time. I have a set of skills that are attractive to intelligent women. I know of multiple women who like my looks. Like, in the most sexual way.
Confidence is the biggest part, but looks count for something. A "10" with no confidence will be less attractive to the majority of people than a "5" with high confidence, but there becomes a point at which people aren't even willing to hear you out.
People know instinctively when they are dating up, down or have impossible dreams.
The reasons for that is as varied as there are people, but we all have primate brains and are hard wired to select partners using criteria that can be and are amazingly flexible