Contradictions of online dating - Article

[ZA Dater]

Not at all.

 

Saying "I think this person is attractive" is attraction.

 

Saying "I get along with this person because we have similar values, goals, personalities, standings in life, etc" is chemistry.

 

For example, maybe there's a stripper you find attractive purely on a sexual level. Let's say she finds you attractive too. Would you, as a middle manager for some insurance company (hypothetical), presume that you have much in common with this girl, or that there's "chemistry?" On that circumstance alone, I'd bet against it. Some people just get along a lot better than others. That's why you have friendships with some people and not others. You have better chemistry -- you have more fun, shared interests, shared values, shared ideals, shared values. But are you attracted to your platonic friends based on their physical appearances?

 

Chemistry is the non-sexual component of a relationship, not the sexual one.

 

Ultimately you need both, I have got along with people really well but they still said I lacked chemistry so in my opinion chemistry is primarily looks driven and dare I say it ALL dating is looks driven in the most part. If the looks isn't appealing most people wont bother to find out more.

 

OLD is proof of that and this thread seems to confirm it.

 

Ask yourself this question when kids grown up they are lavished with attention "my handsome boy or my pretty girl", we are brought up to believe we are attractive physically and it can be quite a shock to realise that we are not, well some of us aren't.

 

OLD is all about bio's but how many people read those if the pictures aren't appealing. Another thing about OLD is its usage % among 18-35, it would be interesting to know the world wide usage % attributable to that age group because in my opinion its that group where one can be fussy about looks, if you make 35 and you aren't married or haven't had a gf then its safe to say looks aren't in your favour and your ability to choose based on them diminishes dramatically.

[LookAtThisPOst]

Ask yourself this question when kids grown up they are lavished with attention "my handsome boy or my pretty girl", we are brought up to believe we are attractive physically and it can be quite a shock to realise that we are not, well some of us aren't.

 

I think a few of us have a self-awareness to know what's universally attractive, physically. I can look at a person and find them attractive, but can tell universally that a lot of people won't.

 

Though, I may find a certain woman attractive, but I can find out from other men what they don't like about her...like her butt's too big, nose to big, teeth too crooked (for them).

 

And I DO see their bigger butts, big nose, crooked teeth, but yet...it's not enough for ME to not want to date them as with these other men who wouldn't touch them with 10-foot pole. I think, "Hey, more for me!" lol

 

I'm like, "Yeah her butt's big, but I don't care. Maybe you do, but I don't." So that's how I find myself rather different in the dating world compared to others more common perceptions of what they find attractive.

 

I recall at a Meetup where a man said, "Man, a lot of chubby chicks here tonight." Though it was a crass comment for him to say, and good thing the music was loud...but when I looked around I saw rather slim to average/nicely shaped women in the group and thought, "What the F* is he talking about?!"

 

So a lot of women I found at least cute/average looking to some rather attractive.

 

To me though, it doesn't take much for me to be physically attracted to a woman. I think that's how I stand apart from the rest of the superficial world. I know my limits and sadly, with ONLINE dating, there are people on there that aren't much to write home about, physically, they want people more attractive than THEY are...and demand no less.

 

They wind up permanent fixtures/spinsters of the online dating world.

[ZA Dater]

I think a few of us have a self-awareness to know what's universally attractive, physically. I can look at a person and find them attractive, but can tell universally that a lot of people won't.

 

Though, I may find a certain woman attractive, but I can find out from other men what they don't like about her...like her butt's too big, nose to big, teeth too crooked (for them).

 

And I DO see their bigger butts, big nose, crooked teeth, but yet...it's not enough for ME to not want to date them as with these other men who wouldn't touch them with 10-foot pole. I think, "Hey, more for me!" lol

 

I'm like, "Yeah her butt's big, but I don't care. Maybe you do, but I don't." So that's how I find myself rather different in the dating world compared to others more common perceptions of what they find attractive.

 

I recall at a Meetup where a man said, "Man, a lot of chubby chicks here tonight." Though it was a crass comment for him to say, and good thing the music was loud...but when I looked around I saw rather slim to average/nicely shaped women in the group and thought, "What the F* is he talking about?!"

 

So a lot of women I found at least cute/average looking to some rather attractive.

 

To me though, it doesn't take much for me to be physically attracted to a woman. I think that's how I stand apart from the rest of the superficial world. I know my limits and sadly, with ONLINE dating, there are people on there that aren't much to write home about, physically, they want people more attractive than THEY are...and demand no less.

 

They wind up permanent fixtures/spinsters of the online dating world.

 

I agree with you and share your sentiment to a great degree. I also used to go for the average looking person with a great personality but when I realised I couldn't get those either, I like you took the same view of OLD.

 

OLD is purely superficial, you can win with money and looks, have neither of those and well the pool of choice ladies have it just too large for them to bother giving a nice guy a chance.

[normal person]

Ultimately you need both, I have got along with people really well but they still said I lacked chemistry so in my opinion chemistry is primarily looks driven and dare I say it ALL dating is looks driven in the most part. If the looks isn't appealing most people wont bother to find out more.

 

OLD is proof of that and this thread seems to confirm it.

 

Maybe if you take everything at face value.

 

The fact of the matter is, you can think you have good chemistry with someone, but it's subjective -- they can just as easily have the opposite opinion. Or, they can say you don't have good chemistry when you get along fine, but what they really mean by "we don't have good chemistry" is "we get along fine but I'm just not that attracted to you, and it's much easier for me to blame it on chemistry than it is to blame it on a lack of physical attraction." I imagine most people have played that card at least once in their time.

[salparadise]

I know my limits and sadly, with ONLINE dating, there are people on there that aren't much to write home about, physically, they want people more attractive than THEY are...and demand no less.

 

They wind up permanent fixtures/spinsters of the online dating world.

 

Yes, of course. I just take for granted that it's that way. I'm not one of the five-percenter guys that women swoon over, so I know i'm looking for exceptions to this rule––the rare individual that thinks I am attractive or one who connects with what I have to say and prioritizes that over looks.

 

It's all consistent with the asymmetrical male/female mating strategies. Men submit many applications and are willing to accept the best offer. Women are nature's optimizers. They choose which males are granted an opportunity to replicate based on perceived quality of genes, ability to deliver resources, and willingness to make the long-term investment. Some of them will hold out for a top five percenter until hell freezes over regardless of their own market equity.

 

The top five guys can get pretty much any woman they want as they are universally considered highly attractive. They will often be willing to bang whomever happens to be available at the time, but are quite selective in terms of who they will commit to. The result is the men and women with the best genes (looks) creating more progeny than those with average or below average genes.

 

Top men proliferate utilizing the capacity of a wide range of women (female capacity being the limiting factor, therefore always in high demand). Women reserve their valuable, limited capacity for a top tier guy, regardless of sufficient equity to secure his commitment... and often end up either raising children alone or remaining childless as they wait for a top tier guy who will commit.

 

Perhaps one the best illustrations of this was Christian Rudder's OK Trends blog post, demonstrated with data gleaned from okc, that something like 90 percent of all women consider 80 percent of all men to be below average in attractiveness. This is nature's way of optimizing the gene pool.

 

It's fairly similar to groups of mountain gorillas (which share a lot of DNA with humans) where they have one dominant male who sires nearly all of the young in that group, however, occasionally one of the females will choose a secondary male and they will sneak away to do the deed. This only works as long as the dominant male is none the wiser as he may kill any interloping male and any offspring he suspects of not being his own. Only a small number of males are allowed to reproduce, but all the females do since it is female capacity that is required and in limited supply.

[ZA Dater]

Maybe if you take everything at face value.

 

The fact of the matter is, you can think you have good chemistry with someone, but it's subjective -- they can just as easily have the opposite opinion. Or, they can say you don't have good chemistry when you get along fine, but what they really mean by "we don't have good chemistry" is "we get along fine but I'm just not that attracted to you, and it's much easier for me to blame it on chemistry than it is to blame it on a lack of physical attraction." I imagine most people have played that card at least once in their time.

 

Absolutely agree with you!

[Kcer]

OP, I'm confused, Midwest asked you this:

 

 

 

 

This was your full reply:

 

 

 

 

 

Sorry OP but this pretty much looks to me like you might just be shooting above your league. Talking leagues 'Miss On the Average Side and Cute' should be aiming for 'Mr On the Average Side and Cute' but you're putting yourself below that.

 

The league thing is confusing. How are people supposed to know who's in their "league" physically?

 

 

Obviously they'res outliers who are 1' and 2's or 9's and 10's but most people aren't.

 

 

Are you suggesting that if you get rejected by attractive people keep going for someone less attractive till one bites even if you aren't that physically attracted to that person?

 

 

You people are making it seem like a mathematical formula where you must stick with your exact physical equivalent that where somehow supposed to realize when we see him or her

[road]

The league thing is confusing. How are people supposed to know who's in their "league" physically?

 

 

Obviously they'res outliers who are 1' and 2's or 9's and 10's but most people aren't.

 

 

Are you suggesting that if you get rejected by attractive people keep going for someone less attractive till one bites even if you aren't that physically attracted to that person?

 

 

You people are making it seem like a mathematical formula where you must stick with your exact physical equivalent that where somehow supposed to realize when we see him or her

 

 

League is not just based on looks alone. There is no formula.

 

 

A woman can be a 7 just on looks.

 

 

A man that fancies her may be a 5 on looks but his other attributes may make him 7.

 

 

These other attributes will make the above woman/7 accept him as a 7 and will pair up with him.

 

 

People know their rating. They pretend to not know it because there is no point in going around and throwing a pity party. They do the best with what they have.

 

 

When the 10's won't even acknowledge, the 9's are rude to him, no woman has asked him out or overtly flirted with him a man knows he can't be more then a middle of the road 5.

[normal person]

You people are making it seem like a mathematical formula where you must stick with your exact physical equivalent that where somehow supposed to realize when we see him or her

 

People, for the most part, date other people with similar levels of socioeconomic status, intelligence, looks, etc.

 

A young, attractive, female doctor probably isn't going to end up with a fat, drunk guy on welfare. It's just not the way things go. Whether you're conscious of it or not, you'll use all your assets (intelligence, beauty, wealth, etc) to try and find the "best" possible partner. Someone who's very good looking and makes a lot of money has very little reason to date someone who's not good looking and makes no money. Now extrapolate that to less extreme differences. Would an attractive doctor marry a not so attractive construction worker? A not so attractive teacher? A moderately attractive accountant? Another attractive doctor?

 

You'll likely date people who are more less your equivalent. Do you think it's just coincidence that successful, beautiful, celebrities intermarry? Tom Brady and Giselle Bundchen -- one of the greatest athletes in a sport's history and one of the most successful, beautiful supermodels on Earth -- who would've thought?

 

While there is no mathematical formula, it's not hard to get a rough idea of where you fall on the spectrum. How much money do you make? How talented/interesting/funny/charismatic/entertaining/smart are you? How attracted to you are women in general? What sorts of women have try to get your attention, which ones did you reject and which ones did you give a chance to? How attractive are they? How much money do they make?

 

Likely, your "league" is people with similar answers to those sorts of questions. It sounds silly and superficial but it's really the way the world works, for the most part. You can try to punch above your weight class, but if you can't hang you'll get rejected and up with someone more appropriate for you.

[jasmineb]

but what they really mean by "we don't have good chemistry" is "we get along fine but I'm just not that attracted to you, and it's much easier for me to blame it on chemistry than it is to blame it on a lack of physical attraction."

 

Excuse me from being obtuse but what is the difference between chemistry and physical attraction? I always presumed attraction to BE the definition of chemistry. Then again for me physical attraction means more than looks. A gorgeous man with a jaded, negative, entitled, crappy attitude would not be attractive to me. A homely man with drive and positivity and responsibility for himself (aka emotional maturity) would be attractive to me.

[normal person]

Excuse me from being obtuse but what is the difference between chemistry and physical attraction? I always presumed attraction to BE the definition of chemistry. Then again for me physical attraction means more than looks. A gorgeous man with a jaded, negative, entitled, crappy attitude would not be attractive to me. A homely man with drive and positivity and responsibility for himself (aka emotional maturity) would be attractive to me.

 

But that doesn't make any sense, because once you start looking beyond looks, it ceases to be "physical" attraction. That's the delineation I'm trying to illustrate. If you knew nothing about the guys, and they never opened their mouths, no doubt you'd find the first guy more attractive. But when the non-sexual, non-physical components come into play, suddenly it all changes. Chemistry, perhaps?

 

As I said earlier, it seems like a lot of us are using a different definition of chemistry.

 

When I say chemistry, I'm talking about all the mental aspects of a relationship. How you interact non-sexually. I've been with girls with whom there was a mutual physical attraction, but not much of a mental one.

 

For example, last year I went out with a girl from Europe for a little bit. Early 20s, was in a great program at one of the best schools in the country, gorgeous, physically flawless. She messaged me online. No doubt there was an attraction for me too, and on paper she ticked all the boxes. Dream come true, right? Not so much. When I met her in person, I found she spoke English fluently enough to get by, but anytime I made a joke, used sarcasm or irony (which I do quite often), or made a reference she didn't understand, I had to go all the way down to square one and explain it to her. It got so tiresome after a while and I dreaded hanging out with her because it felt like a chore. Sexually? The exact opposite story. On top of all that, the things she got excited about and wanted to spend time doing just didn't mesh well with the things I got excited about and wanted to spend time doing. We were just different. We just were on different pages to the point where I couldn't even force myself to hang out with this otherwise smart, beautiful woman. Physically, I couldn't wait to rip her clothes off. But the thought of sitting at dinner for an hour with her and asking/answering such uninteresting questions and explanations got to be something I just couldn't put myself through for it. Plenty of sexual/physical attraction, insufficient chemistry.

 

Two people can be attracted to each other on their pictures alone. So how can you say they have chemistry when they never interact? Now take the same people and have them meet. Maybe they get along well, great. But what if they don't? What's the excuse? Not a lack of attraction. Attraction's what got them there. More likely a lack of compatibility on a non-sexual level. I call it chemistry, you call it whatever you want.

 

So do you still say two people have good chemistry if they're attracted to each other physically but can't stand each other otherwise? That's the reasoning behind my choice of words. Whatever you want to call it, it's one of the factors that keeps us from just pairing up with any other people we find physically attractive.

[ZA Dater]

People, for the most part, date other people with similar levels of socioeconomic status, intelligence, looks, etc.

 

A young, attractive, female doctor probably isn't going to end up with a fat, drunk guy on welfare. It's just not the way things go. Whether you're conscious of it or not, you'll use all your assets (intelligence, beauty, wealth, etc) to try and find the "best" possible partner. Someone who's very good looking and makes a lot of money has very little reason to date someone who's not good looking and makes no money. Now extrapolate that to less extreme differences. Would an attractive doctor marry a not so attractive construction worker? A not so attractive teacher? A moderately attractive accountant? Another attractive doctor?

 

You'll likely date people who are more less your equivalent. Do you think it's just coincidence that successful, beautiful, celebrities intermarry? Tom Brady and Giselle Bundchen -- one of the greatest athletes in a sport's history and one of the most successful, beautiful supermodels on Earth -- who would've thought?

 

While there is no mathematical formula, it's not hard to get a rough idea of where you fall on the spectrum. How much money do you make? How talented/interesting/funny/charismatic/entertaining/smart are you? How attracted to you are women in general? What sorts of women have try to get your attention, which ones did you reject and which ones did you give a chance to? How attractive are they? How much money do they make?

 

Likely, your "league" is people with similar answers to those sorts of questions. It sounds silly and superficial but it's really the way the world works, for the most part. You can try to punch above your weight class, but if you can't hang you'll get rejected and up with someone more appropriate for you.

 

Reading this post its a wonder anyone who has any sort of ambition in life even bothers with dating. I don't believe anyone strives for mediocrity which is what your post above basically implies people must do.

 

But you are right.

 

The bold part, I am sure we have all asked ourselves those questions, some many times and you know what, when you an answer those questions and you see the answers and your apply those answers, many of us just simply are not interested in the matches those answers suggest we go for.

 

Lastly I don't believe anyone has an equivalent, I used to believe this though.

[ZA Dater]

But that doesn't make any sense, because once you start looking beyond looks, it ceases to be "physical" attraction. That's the delineation I'm trying to illustrate. If you knew nothing about the guys, and they never opened their mouths, no doubt you'd find the first guy more attractive. But when the non-sexual, non-physical components come into play, suddenly it all changes. Chemistry, perhaps?

 

As I said earlier, it seems like a lot of us are using a different definition of chemistry.

 

When I say chemistry, I'm talking about all the mental aspects of a relationship. How you interact non-sexually. I've been with girls with whom there was a mutual physical attraction, but not much of a mental one.

 

For example, last year I went out with a girl from Europe for a little bit. Early 20s, was in a great program at one of the best schools in the country, gorgeous, physically flawless. She messaged me online. No doubt there was an attraction for me too, and on paper she ticked all the boxes. Dream come true, right? Not so much. When I met her in person, I found she spoke English fluently enough to get by, but anytime I made a joke, used sarcasm or irony (which I do quite often), or made a reference she didn't understand, I had to go all the way down to square one and explain it to her. It got so tiresome after a while and I dreaded hanging out with her because it felt like a chore. Sexually? The exact opposite story. On top of all that, the things she got excited about and wanted to spend time doing just didn't mesh well with the things I got excited about and wanted to spend time doing. We were just different. We just were on different pages to the point where I couldn't even force myself to hang out with this otherwise smart, beautiful woman. Physically, I couldn't wait to rip her clothes off. But the thought of sitting at dinner for an hour with her and asking/answering such uninteresting questions and explanations got to be something I just couldn't put myself through for it. Plenty of sexual/physical attraction, insufficient chemistry.

 

Two people can be attracted to each other on their pictures alone. So how can you say they have chemistry when they never interact? Now take the same people and have them meet. Maybe they get along well, great. But what if they don't? What's the excuse? Not a lack of attraction. Attraction's what got them there. More likely a lack of compatibility on a non-sexual level. I call it chemistry, you call it whatever you want.

 

So do you still say two people have good chemistry if they're attracted to each other physically but can't stand each other otherwise? That's the reasoning behind my choice of words. Whatever you want to call it, it's one of the factors that keeps us from just pairing up with any other people we find physically attractive.

 

Brilliant post!

 

Things get complicated when you go searching for the entire package.

[normal person]

Reading this post its a wonder anyone who has any sort of ambition in life even bothers with dating. I don't believe anyone strives for mediocrity which is what your post above basically implies people must do.

 

But you are right.

 

That depends on what you think is "ambitious." Most people who are successful in their careers and make a lot of money could be considered ambitious. And let's not lie, ambition and/or money is big part of life and can influence a lot of attraction. Ambition might be the desire to get better at something or develop a new skill or facet of life. Regardless, I think ambitious people are the ones who push themselves for more in their existence. The ones who continue to do things rather be complacent and watch other people do things. That sort of willingness to push the boundaries, leave a comfort zone, and aspire to "more" is ambition, I think. I don't think anyone would argue that that's unattractive.

 

Speaking for myself, mediocrity is my worst nightmare. I'd hate to waste my life just merely existing. I've never had any trouble with women, but my love life really hit the highest gear when I put my nose to the grindstone in all aspects of life. It's really a basic principle: if you want something, work for it. If you work hard enough, you'll probably be successful, and you can reap the rewards, whatever they may be.

 

The bold part, I am sure we have all asked ourselves those questions, some many times and you know what, when you an answer those questions and you see the answers and your apply those answers, many of us just simply are not interested in the matches those answers suggest we go for.

 

Lastly I don't believe anyone has an equivalent, I used to believe this though.

 

If someone's not interested in the matches the answers suggest, then there's probably a disparity between how the person views themselves and how everyone else views them. In the end, everyone finds out what their market value is by how successful or unsuccessful they are with the people they like. But it always seems to suggest that if you want to be with someone, you really have to kind of be in their "league" yourself. As for "equivalence," maybe you're getting too specific. Socioeconomic status and looks are the big ones. If you're a high earner and good looking, then your "equivalent" is someone in the same realm. If you're a bit overweight and content with a minimum wage job, same deal. There's few reasons someone would date "down" for you and also few why you would settle for someone "lower" than yourself. Everyone usually gets market value for themselves.

[ZA Dater]

That depends on what you think is "ambitious." Most people who are successful in their careers and make a lot of money could be considered ambitious. And let's not lie, ambition and/or money is big part of life and can influence a lot of attraction. Ambition might be the desire to get better at something or develop a new skill or facet of life. Regardless, I think ambitious people are the ones who push themselves for more in their existence. The ones who continue to do things rather be complacent and watch other people do things. That sort of willingness to push the boundaries, leave a comfort zone, and aspire to "more" is ambition, I think. I don't think anyone would argue that that's unattractive.

 

Speaking for myself, mediocrity is my worst nightmare. I'd hate to waste my life just merely existing. I've never had any trouble with women, but my love life really hit the highest gear when I put my nose to the grindstone in all aspects of life. It's really a basic principle: if you want something, work for it. If you work hard enough, you'll probably be successful, and you can reap the rewards, whatever they may be.

 

 

 

If someone's not interested in the matches the answers suggest, then there's probably a disparity between how the person views themselves and how everyone else views them. In the end, everyone finds out what their market value is by how successful or unsuccessful they are with the people they like. But it always seems to suggest that if you want to be with someone, you really have to kind of be in their "league" yourself. As for "equivalence," maybe you're getting too specific. Socioeconomic status and looks are the big ones. If you're a high earner and good looking, then your "equivalent" is someone in the same realm. If you're a bit overweight and content with a minimum wage job, same deal. There's few reasons someone would date "down" for you and also few why you would settle for someone "lower" than yourself. Everyone usually gets market value for themselves.

 

I think you make a lot of valid points and I agree with some. In terms of success I guess perpetual failure makes anyone re evaluate leagues and how they fit or don't fit what they like. I'd argue some people would rather have nothing that dating down to something they don't want.

 

At least dreaming is free.

[LookAtThisPOst]

Lastly I don't believe anyone has an equivalent, I used to believe this though.

 

I recall a woman I emailed a long time ago that she's put a big emphasis on "I'm looking for my looks match"

 

Basically, she is looking for a man equal to her in looks...and she is quite the looker. She didn't work a high paying job, but it was nominal...wasn't min. wage either. She was just very attractive.

 

Of course, I know this one guy, he's dated belly dancer instructor years, he's just a photographer and not much else.

 

If you saw them together, you wouldn't think they are "together" as she dresses to kill and he dresses in jeans and a polo shirt of his business. He's not even a suit and tie guy.

 

To see them together at a night club, you'd think he's an older relative as he appears much older than her. Doesn't look in shape at all, but "okay" looking over-all.

 

I saw them come into together, she was sportin' a little black dress, heels, and was turning heads. He sat sat down and was ordering drinks and she just worked the room.

 

They aren't married, but have been together for 7 years. He's always posting random shots of her in her underwear or lingerie as she "models" for him on Facebook.

 

"This is the love of my life and I'm so lucky to have her". The man puts her on a pedestal. Quite frankly, I don't know what she sees in him, but a pot for every lid.

 

Basically, you'd think they are NOT in the same league if you saw them together, but shockingly, I've come across women that are total knock outs with very average looking husbands.

 

I know an Hispanic woman that models a lot, and if you saw her husband, you'd think, "WTF is she doing with him?" He's got a pooch on him, nerdy looking etc. She works as a bank teller and he works for blue collar government job.

 

But they've been married for 20 years! Some times you'll see 10s with very average looking men. Chances are if they had NOT met these women, they'd be dating very average, probably overweight women themselves.

 

But these women had model looks as they were models.

 

Thing is though, HE was a photographer on the side, too.

 

So I am seeing these pairings of "photographer/models" now. As there are MEETUPS dedicated to this. So maybe they are onto something there? LOL Maybe I should be come a photographer, pitch, show up to these sessions with a camera, start snapping photos, and introduce yourself? lol

[ZA Dater]

I recall a woman I emailed a long time ago that she's put a big emphasis on "I'm looking for my looks match"

 

Basically, she is looking for a man equal to her in looks...and she is quite the looker. She didn't work a high paying job, but it was nominal...wasn't min. wage either. She was just very attractive.

 

Of course, I know this one guy, he's dated belly dancer instructor years, he's just a photographer and not much else.

 

If you saw them together, you wouldn't think they are "together" as she dresses to kill and he dresses in jeans and a polo shirt of his business. He's not even a suit and tie guy.

 

To see them together at a night club, you'd think he's an older relative as he appears much older than her. Doesn't look in shape at all, but "okay" looking over-all.

 

I saw them come into together, she was sportin' a little black dress, heels, and was turning heads. He sat sat down and was ordering drinks and she just worked the room.

 

They aren't married, but have been together for 7 years. He's always posting random shots of her in her underwear or lingerie as she "models" for him on Facebook.

 

"This is the love of my life and I'm so lucky to have her". The man puts her on a pedestal. Quite frankly, I don't know what she sees in him, but a pot for every lid.

 

Basically, you'd think they are NOT in the same league if you saw them together, but shockingly, I've come across women that are total knock outs with very average looking husbands.

 

I know an Hispanic woman that models a lot, and if you saw her husband, you'd think, "WTF is she doing with him?" He's got a pooch on him, nerdy looking etc. She works as a bank teller and he works for blue collar government job.

 

But they've been married for 20 years! Some times you'll see 10s with very average looking men. Chances are if they had NOT met these women, they'd be dating very average, probably overweight women themselves.

 

But these women had model looks as they were models.

 

Thing is though, HE was a photographer on the side, too.

 

So I am seeing these pairings of "photographer/models" now. As there are MEETUPS dedicated to this. So maybe they are onto something there? LOL Maybe I should be come a photographer, pitch, show up to these sessions with a camera, start snapping photos, and introduce yourself? lol

 

I think the issue is everything is so subjective. Take someone I know, she was single for 5 years, I chased her for a while and she has ended up dating a guy who is plump, has face like a watermelon and in all probability could not run 100 yards.

 

However I am told the reason she picked him over me and this was from her mouth to a friend of mine is.

 

: he has confidence

: he isn't shy.

 

My point being attraction is so subjective that finding an equivalent is equally so.

 

Model, I have met more than my fair share of the, I don't even bother pursuing them, I realise I cannot play at that level, so yes I take a casual look but any physical attraction is tempered by knowing I wont get anywhere.

 

I think dating is a contradiction because everyone is so different and unique. What is contradictory for one is complimentary for another.

[LookAtThisPOst]

: he has confidence

: he isn't shy.

 

That's such a platitude response.

 

I'm not shy, I have confidence and an avid socializer...as I'm sure many men that have asked her out had the "confidence" TO ask her out.

 

I think dating is a contradiction because everyone is so different and unique. What is contradictory for one is complimentary for another.

 

Yeah, leaves you scratching your head.

 

I've known good looking men, despite them being aware of the "plump, out of shape guy" in her company, they will attempt talk to her in public, ignoring the poor guy. lol.

 

I've heard of this happening. They'd assume he's some kind guy friend she friend zoned or a brother or relative, and make a move on her right in front of such a guy. lol

 

They are so "confident" that they'll easily snag her away from him. But that's save for another post.

 

That all said, but then I think, "Well, maybe one day I'll be THAT guy and that there's still hope for me yet!" LOL

Edited April 4, 2016 by LookAtThisPOst

[thecrucible]

In my opinion, it's not just online dating itself that limits the dating process. It's the sea of confusing dating advice out there. In the end I think it's best to not stick rigidly to dating advice recommend in blogs or follow any particular rule books. Following your intuition is the best bet and sometimes if you think "Screw it. I'm going to take a chance", it can get you better results.

 

I don't analyse a man's message anymore. If it's not rude or sordid, I reply to it. Messages aren't always a good indicator of whether you would get on with the person or not.

[LookAtThisPOst]

In my opinion, it's not just online dating itself that limits the dating process. It's the sea of confusing dating advice out there. In the end I think it's best to not stick rigidly to dating advice recommend in blogs or follow any particular rule books. Following your intuition is the best bet and sometimes if you think "Screw it. I'm going to take a chance", it can get you better results.

 

I don't analyse a man's message anymore. If it's not rude or sordid, I reply to it. Messages aren't always a good indicator of whether you would get on with the person or not.

 

That's a good attitude to have.

[ZA Dater]

In my opinion, it's not just online dating itself that limits the dating process. It's the sea of confusing dating advice out there. In the end I think it's best to not stick rigidly to dating advice recommend in blogs or follow any particular rule books. Following your intuition is the best bet and sometimes if you think "Screw it. I'm going to take a chance", it can get you better results.

 

I don't analyse a man's message anymore. If it's not rude or sordid, I reply to it. Messages aren't always a good indicator of whether you would get on with the person or not.

 

I wish more ladies would adopt this approach.

[LookAtThisPOst]

My point being attraction is so subjective that finding an equivalent is equally so.

 

I'm reminded of a dating profile of a woman in her mid 40s, has lived on crutches her entire life...lives with her parents and considered legally disabled.

 

Talk about asking more for in a man that what SHE can bring to the table. She asked that he be athletic, able bodied, and able to take to fine dining establishments and also be financially well off.

 

THIS woman is asking for such a man? I thought I'd seen everything. She's not even humbled by her own disability to see the reality of the situation here.

[MidwestUSA]

I'm reminded of a dating profile of a woman in her mid 40s, has lived on crutches her entire life...lives with her parents and considered legally disabled.

 

Talk about asking more for in a man that what SHE can bring to the table. She asked that he be athletic, able bodied, and able to take to fine dining establishments and also be financially well off.

 

THIS woman is asking for such a man? I thought I'd seen everything. She's not even humbled by her own disability to see the reality of the situation here.

 

She's free to ask, or wish, for anything she wants.

 

Perhaps she was looking for an arrangement. A well off guy who would provide for her, and in return, she allows him to do his thing with whom ever he pleases. Somewhat like an adoption. Her parents won't be around forever.

 

I've heard of stranger things.