.anon. wrote: » Right now, yes. But I haven't always been single. And I have enough self-confidence to believe that I probably won't be single forever either, because I have things to offer a potential partner outside of being wealthy and tall, dark and handsome. Past experiences have taught me that women aren't all the same, and that some of them are, for whatever reason, attracted to me. I take it you're single too, and you blame outside factors for that? Damn those women, only being attracted to tall, good-looking men with deep pockets instead of nice little guys like me.
.anon. wrote: » 'Leagues' only exist in people's very narrow minds. But there are sadly a lot of narrow minded people out there. Personally, I wouldn't be attracted to the type of person who felt that my job or my earnings made me 'not good enough' for her anyway.
harrymcgowan wrote: » Some say they do and others don't. Basically can an unattractive, low earning guy score an attractive high earning woman?
TuringBot47 wrote: » Yeah, especially if the women hit early/mid thirties... that ticking biological clock can get you a good second-hand bargain. Like a classic car.
Blondini wrote: » Good looking people are treated better. Good looking people match with other good looking people.
Mad_maxx wrote: » all the classics are taken by mid thirties , only micras left
Lynn Door wrote: » I dont think there is "leagues" just personal preference. Some like tall/short, fat/skinny, blonde/dark/red whatever. Loads of different variants and I think once that initial preference is ticked if you like, the fact that a tall skinny model falls for a fat ginger because he is her type she is called a gold digger or vice versa? Just my opinion
harrymcgowan wrote: » I wouldn't say leagues are literally defined but in a vague sense, they exist. There is a filter theory in psychology It's very unlikely that a woman from Donnybrook would date and marry a guy from Ballymun. Not impossible just unlikely. People want to date those of similar socioeconomic status/area they live in. Similarly, despite how forward thinking todays society is in terms of gender, most people still expect sexual dimorphism in relationships i.e. the man is taller, older and the woman is younger, shorter. Being a short man will hamper your dating chances, not completely but still hamper it.
Lynn Door wrote: » I think you will find cars in their mid thirties have only reached their peak. Its a shame you havent had the experience.
Surreptitious wrote: » Not another thread like this please. This tall sh!t will crop up again and overweight women etc. Just not able for it.
Mad_maxx wrote: » a lot of people are forced to settle , i adore my fiance but im not really that physically attracted to her
Mad_maxx wrote: » a lot of people are forced to settle , i adore my fiance but im not really that physically attracted to her , love everything else about her and thats enough , not like im the catch of the century either
Dial Hard wrote: » Jesus. Threads and posts like this both depress the fcuk out of me and make me very thankful for my single, child free (by choice), financially independent and pretty much entirely happy status.
TuringBot47 wrote: » Attracted is different to thinking of them as long term partners. Women may be attracted to the alpha male types, but whether they'd trust them not to cheat/stray, consider that they're be happy with them long term is a different story. I'd say there's a lot of women that wouldn't want to have to keep going to the gym/getting work done to look good for a model man. Or would slowly go into a control freak breakdown of insecurity as they aged and the guy stayed looking good. So usually there's a compromise in the long run. The solid stable types, earners and mature ones can win out for marriage.
Hamachi wrote: » However, it’s been my experience that those with lofty, high-minded ideals around the dating preferences of others, are often terminally single.
hynesie08 wrote: » Leagues exist, but promotion is possible....
FortuneChip wrote: » Aye, there's usually a way in the backdoor isn't there?
Mickey_James wrote: » It's true. I swipe on tinder thinking "why are you single at 33 if you're a catch?" Bad thought I know
JeffKenna wrote: » A fella playing in the third division in his 20's can easily move up to a premiership player in his 30's. Works the opposite for women, a premiership player in her 20's falls down the leagues very quickly in her 30's/40's.
Dial Hard wrote: » I'm about to break one of my own rules and engage in gender/dating AH thread a) at all and b) in good faith. Here goes: That's a very reductive thought process alright. I'm single in my late 30s through a combination of circumstance and choice. I married in my 20s because I was head over heels in love with my ex. I never wanted children. I knew that, he knew that, everyone knew that. And all was good in the world for years. Unfortunately, he changed his mind and the inevitable happened. Fast forward several years. I'm single at 38 and yes, I consider myself "a catch" (whatever that means). I'm fun, funny, fit, financially independent, emotionally independent. I have a good job, live in a nice gaff, drive a nice car and the only reason I'm "still" single is because I'm happy out and it will take a pretty special man to turn my head. Not because I'm picky, not because I'm a princess, not because I'm looking for some unicorn-like creature who can tick a load of arbitrary boxes. I'm quite simply not particularly pushed or rushed and I've no interest in settling. If it happens, it happens and if it doesn't, it doesn't. I married for love and it didn't work out. But I count myself incredibly lucky for having had that and it's more than many people get. If I spend the rest of my life single, I will 100% be ok with that. An oul rattle would be nice, though.
anewme wrote: » Why?
