Sometimes her beauty isn't merely radiant, but howling. And she isn't just aloof, she's oblivious. And she just sits there, twanging that thing....

Over and over and over and...

I can see it... I'm upper middle-class hot, not old money oil tycoon hot. My brother dated someone very out of his league not long ago, and it ended disasterously. I think that anyone who is even somewhat self-aware knows what they are capable of snagging, and will do the best they can instinctively. If you try to date out of your league, you'll end up getting better-dealed.

Depends on how you look at it.

From a dedicated bachelor's POV, the women who make the best company are late bloomers. These are ladies who were not the beauties early in life. They maintain that humility and the personality and intelligence they developed when non-beautiful, but now are attractive in a well rounded way (fit, well-dressed, stylish, witty, charismatic).
As for the beautiful from birth, people treat them as "special," even as babies. The adoration and open doors are a mixed blessing, as these same women (and, increasingly, men) have little incentive to push themselves intellectually or personality-wise (how many good looking comics are there?) to get admiration and attention.

Pretty is good for about six weeks. Then you get used to her, and there better be something else attractive there.

There were a few times that I dated "up". One ended up being a serious relationship and the other one is my wife. For those two, people may have thought I was dating "up" by being a nerdy guy with a hot chick - but after a while it just started to look and seem appropriate.

The other time she had a horrible personality, and I had no clue what she saw in me.

There is a threshold: you must be at least *this* attractive (physically). This is essential, at least for guys.

After reaching that threshold, physical appearance is less important than other factors. That assumes that you are looking for a long-term relationship, rather than a one-night stand.

In a word? Yes. I avoid the 'too pretty' ones entirely. I have several reasons:

1. I'm not an ugly man, but I'm not Brad Pitt either. Plus I'm short. So I know it's a wasted effort a lot of the time.

2. As Engineer mentioned, personality counts too. One can only stand beside an empty shell (or poisonous person) long enough.

3. I'm not rich, and have zero desire to bankrupt myself for a woman. (ANY woman!)

4. My tastes vary from "the norm." For instance, I prefer dark-haired brunettes whose ribs are not immediately visible. (And redheads too, Amy, you look quite stunning.) The whole tall-skinny-giggling-blonde thing? Useless.

So I avoid the "woah!" type of girl when dating. Generally go for mousier, bookish types. When I have the patience to date, that is.

I simply be myself with everyone and catch what flies into the web. I have criteria other than looks that a woman must meet. The too-pretty women seem to never meet the criteria and a lot of the simply cute ones don't either. More often than not the too-pretty women and I eliminate each other as options.

When I used to specifically try to date the too-pretty women they always seemed to need maintenance and there was always someone who could provide it better than me. Now those women get eliminated early.

So, I don't consciously try to date women below the too-pretty threshold, it is these women who most often exhibit behaviors and attitudes that I find acceptable.

Women mostly misinterpret prettiness.
They consider flashing high-maintenance as "being good-looking" and it really is not. Some ugly gal wearing shitty loubutiens will feel herself prettier than a real beautiful gal wearing no-name tennies.
I tend to steer away from SITC apes thinking themselves pretty, do I consider them out of my league? They might think so, but that's just wishful thinking.

SITC- Sex in the City. I had to google that one...

It all depends on how you feel about yourself. If you think you are plain looking and don't have much redeeming qualities compared to her, then it becomes much harder to pluck up the courage to approach a woman who looks so gorgeous as to be totally out of your league. The best thing one can do is to just lower your expectations and be friendly to her. If she starts to like you, then you can try taking it up a notch and send out some feelers as to the possibility of going out on a date. If she reciprocates, then that helps your self confidence, makes being with her feel natural and makes you more attractive to her as well.

There are two kinds of stunning women, one kind worth dating, the other more trouble than they're worth.

Those are:

A. The beautiful woman who, whether she knows she's beautiful or not, is not overly arrogant about it, she has a personality that is as pleasant to experience as her beauty.

OR

B. The one who knows she's hot, and develops a HORRIBLE personality because she's used to people kowtowing to try to get her legs open.

I've gone out with women in both categories. The man with self respect enjoys women in category "A" a great deal, they're fun and they're delightful eye candy, you not only want them in bed, you want them there the next morning.

The one's in "B" are so bothersome that, however blessed by Aphrodite she might be, they're barely tolerable long enough to be worth bedding, and intolerable the next morning. Men with no self respect will exacerbate their worst traits by behaving much like lost little puppy's around them and feeding the beast. Said women are also usually pretty bad in bed because they often think they don't have to do much but lay there and look lovely.

Really there isn't such a thing as dating "out of one's league" if a man's confidence and success matches her expectations.

------------------

One of the most beautiful women I ever enjoyed the company of once told me something that every man should hear, and it went something like this:

If there is one incredible beauty in a room, and one hundred men, 90 men will be to intimidated to approach her. Of the remaining 10, 5 of them will go up to her and be assholes or drunkards or some combination thereof.

Of the LAST 5, 1-3 will probably be sober, but to nervous or tongue tied to get much out. SO, the remaining 2 out of 100 will have a good chance, if they're well spoken, confident, and reasonably well maintained in dress and physique for her social order, have a damn good chance of getting her interest.

Sorry, Robert, they will have "a good chance" for what? "Getting her interest" means what specifically? They will be allowed to spend their money to please her? They will be granted permission to serve her?
Sorry to say, you have been conned.

When I was about 17, I talked to a girl who won a beauty contest as a teenager. She told me that she hardly ever got asked out, so I asked her out and we dated for a while.

I drank a lot for the next 15 years and had very lowered inhibitions. If I saw someone that attracted me, I asked her out with a fair bit of success.

I've never thought of myself as very high status or good looking, but even after I sobered up, I still wasn't shy about asking good looking women out.

I found that some were nice, some were assholes, just like the women I thought were less attractive.

Now, in my 50's, the consensus among my wife's friends is that I am fairly high status. I'm OK looking, have a good job and my weight is appropriate for my height. Nothing really special, but apparently that is enough to put me ahead of a lot of guys my age.

It should be possible to consider this problem theoretically, Amy.

For those of us with a double digit autism score, we are trying to put together an agent based model looking at the optimal way to weight "good genes" (i.e. attractiveness) vs. "good family" (i.e. likely to be a good cooperative parent). If/when we get results and publish them, we will let you know.

Thanks, Lesley. Glad to hear you're working on that. To talk a little shop, I'm thinking about assortative mating, and people of disparate and commensurate mate values pairing up.

Well "me" in this instance, think of catching her interest as a reasonable opportunity to find out if she's worth your time too. You're missing the forest for the trees on this one.

The point is that beautiful women to rarely get approached in the first place, and if you do act, and have some confidence about you, there is at least a reasonable chance to snag a very pretty wench for one's self.

And the girl in question who told me that, well we were together for a good long while, and remain good friends to this day, not least because I never ever ever kowtowed to her or lost her respect.

Do you consciously date really cute women but not too pretty ones if you aren't at the top in the male pecking order?

No. But I avoid women who seem to have too keen of an interest in the 'pecking order'. That solves all sorts of problems.

A lot of women reject the slut vs. take-home distinction, but we're really back to it.

Men should always try to fuck above their status. It's actually pretty easy these days with sluts abundant as air. With any game at all, a guy can pull 8s, 9s, and 10s out of most any bar after midnight, and fuck until dawn. Do that a couple of times a week, and a fellow can live on it.

Relationships are different. Relate with realism. If you've got a woman worth a relationship, then you have something very rare and expensive and well - worth it. Ensure you can keep what you catch.

Not for nothing, but I have 3 co-workers who are beautiful women (think Jennifer Anniston). I know for a fact that 2 of them have cheated on their spouses (they admitted it to me) and there have been rumors about the 3rd. From talking to the two who admitted to me that they cheated, the reason was that they were bored with their husbands. One actually said "I always knew I was way out of his league, but he made good money and my parents liked him". She was banging a cardiologist, who was also married, and gorgeous.
Now, I know that all sorts of people cheat on their spouses, but I find it interesting that these gorgeous girls did it so casually and with such an attitude of entitlement. "I know I'm out of his league. I know I can get any guy I want." It's almost as we age, they have to prove that they're still the head cheerleader that everyone wants to do.

From a dedicated bachelor's POV, the women who make the best company are late bloomers.

I agree, and this goes for guys, too. I'd put my BF in the late-bloomer category. He has retained the intelligence and nerdiness that I find ever so attractive, but he also looks like John Stamos.

B. The one who knows she's hot, and develops a HORRIBLE personality because she's used to people kowtowing to try to get her legs open.

And I think it's also important to know that this horrible personality comes, not always from a feeling of superiority, but also from the annoyance of being relentlessly and aggressively pursued.

One of my best friends is a dead-ringer for Freida Pinto. And every time she goes out, guys of all levels of attractiveness are after her. Telling them politely that she's out with her girls does not stop them from buying her drinks and bullying her to accept them and telling her she looks "exotic." As a result, she's always guarded and quite the ice queen around men.

Thank you, sofar! Yes boys, remember: even when a woman acts like a bitch toward you, it's your fault!

My brother who is a very good looking guy but not a model always seemed to get the most beautiful women. It seemed as if each one got better looking than the last. He ended up marrying a plain Jane and I have to say that when it came to personality and kindness, plain Jane had nothing on the beauties. I still can't figure out what he based his choice on.

I learned late in high school that attitude mattered most. Trying to get to know popular or the best looking gals didn't equal compatibility. Most of the gals I respect and are attracted to are not what you'd considered Playboy material. I'm fifty seven now and Playboy back in the day was more realistic than today, but still attitude equaled compatibility over a great body.

When I think of Jennifer Anniston I think "horse".

The next woman that is "out of my league" will be the first.

Repeat.

All relationships exist on certain terms, unconditional love is reserved solely for one's offspring. If I married a hot woman who thought she was to good for me, she'd be single and able to test her theory in a heartbeat.

One very beautiful woman I was with for quite a long time was with me for so long precisely because she knew that, no matter how beautiful she was, if she crossed certain lines, I'd drop her without hesitation. (I'm not talking stupid little lines like burning the toast or not calling the next day, I mean cheating, attempts at manipulation, or an excessive love of drama) The woman who thinks that no matter what she does, her significant other would never leave her, will quickly cease to value them.

That is simple human nature, if it seems rare in men, well we're the pursuers after all.

The significant other who knows "If I do this, he's good as gone" will be a great deal less likely to do something to threaten that bond. Just a hypothesis on my part, call it inductive logic based upon personal experience and first hand observation.

I still can't figure out what he based his choice on.

Posted by: Kristen

Pregnacy scare?

> The next woman that is "out of my league"
> will be the first.
>
> Repeat...

Don't bother. You're missing the point, which is not to be so fabulously macho that Amy's disk drives melt from the heat.

Yes, "out of my league" is an emotionally manipulative expression. And kind of a feminine one, at that. It's right up there with "It's not you, it's me, OK?" Men shouldn't use it, and certainly never with strangers.

But I think most guys (or girls) who'd say that are really saying: I can't be comfortable in your presence, because your beauty (money, tittyrack, demeanor, etc.) means too much to me. Good to see you again, though. Have you tried the hors d'oeuvres? No? They're wonderful. OK, have a great weekend.

Being comfortable with people is where the action is. This is what makes the stereotype of the ugly American abroad, a buffoon who can instantly make friends with anyone, so poignant. If you're such a thunder-dicked slab of "certain line"-drawing manhood that you can walk into any room and be instantly at peace with any woman (like, NOW, goddamit), then you probably haven't met many women.

>>>Do you get the sense that there are women who are too pretty (or gorgeous) for you to date Yes, however, I don't let that necessarily be a non starter. The sense or vibe of each situation will determine the course of action.

>>>If so why
Ultimately it probably is a fear of failure. A sense that it is a hopeless cause with no real chance of success (but a significant chance for a gaping wound to the ego).

>>>Do you consciously date really cute women but not too pretty ones if you aren't at the top in the male pecking order? I do not believe there is a 'I am at station A so I will only go for women usually available to station A". Put another way, if the prettiest girl warms up to you, the vast majority of men will run with it regardless if they believe their station is measurably below hers.

There are so many angles to this it would take hundreds of pages to write (like the difference between a pretty girl at 18 versus 28 versus 38). Ultimately confidence is so very key. In my observation a guy who puts a modest level of effort into his appearance, has a gainful career, is quick witted/demonstrates confidence is going to have good success across the board (assuming his features aren't off putting in some way).

The other angle you learn as you get some years under your belt is how much of a facade the "pretty girl" thing can be. You learn there is not a big difference between the attractive girl (but far from the prettiest) versus the really pretty girl. Given a handful of months, the looks thing will become much much closer to equal. You'll learn that the higher level looks don't equal happiness (and often can equal unhappiness).

Sorry, Robert, I disagree. "think of catching her interest as a reasonable opportunity to find out if she's worth your time too" means that she is going to decide whether to show me her best character qualities or do not bother, just give me an elbow and show the best qualities to someone else at this party, whom she likes better tonight?
If you call that "friendship", I am glad that I never had ladies as friends.

I have never met a woman who I considered "out of my league".

Of course, I've met MANY women who had no interest in me, and they've ranged from gorgeous to hideous. If I meet an attractive woman, I look for signs of interest. If she seems interested, I pursue her; if she doesn't, I move on. But I don't consider women who aren't interested in me as "out of my league" -- they're just not interested. And I have no interest in women who have no interest in me.

I actually hear this "out of my league" stuff mostly from women -- they talk about how they are "out of the league" of most men. Usually it's something like "I intimidate most men because I am so successful and attractive". Ummm, no. Sorry, ladies. Men are not "intimidated" by you; they're repulsed by you because you think you are so much better than everybody else.

Amy said, "I'm thinking about assortative mating, and people of disparate and commensurate mate values pairing up." You mean that nice cooperative ordinary-looking people pair up with defectors that have great genes.

I think that it works like that in some way but I think it might be possible to find the optimum mating strategy so that there is a steady increase in genetic quality and also a steady increase in cooperativeness. (We know that humans are mostly cooperative and mostly OK-looking and we have to explain how we got here.) I see children being brought up in extended families and the wider family playing a role in choosing the mate. It would be families rather than individuals that compete. We know in pre-modern populations parents do play a role in mate choice and the bringing up of children. The optimum weight to put on good genes will vary with the harshness of the environment, I reckon.

"A lot of women reject the slut vs. take-home distinction, but we're really back to it."

I was trying to explain this to a cute, very insecure 23 yr old girl at a party last night. She was frustrated by her date's attention to a slutty looking woman who walked into the room. She complained, "How do you compete with that?" And I said, "You don't. You're not in the same market. You're relationship material, and she's not."

"Pregnacy scare?"

Luj, definitely not because they didn't have kids until a few years later and they were thoroughly miserable when they did. As nice as the beautiful girlfriends were I often wondered if my brother settled with the plain Jane because he felt more secure that she was never going anywhere. Its very sad because his girlfriends before were all devoted to him and I do think he still felt that they were more beautiful than he deserved and would always wonder when they'd get scooped away by some more beautiful man.

I'm skeptical that this preference, and the resulting strategies, are sufficiently consistent among men to be fundamental in engendering patterns of assortative mating. Wouldn't this require shared standards, between both men and women? As in, who is very cute but not pretty, who's at the top of the pecking order?

Also realistically you don't typically encounter enough beautiful, or even very cute, women to develop a consistent strategy for selecting among them. There are relatively few opportunities to pursue even one, much less sacrifice one to pursue another. Perhaps this is possible in certain settings, like college, but not generally.

As a woman considered quite attractive, I will attest to what Robert said - that we aren't approached as often as some may assume. And the men who do approach us tend to be the most aggressive men in the room, not necessarily the best looking.

I found it easier to approach men myself. Some are genuinely surprised when a pretty girl walks up and chats, but I find that far more appealing than a man who's full of himself.

One problem, though, is that if I just want to talk to a man because he's interesting - say, I'm mingling at a party, and overhear a guy talking about an intriguing topic - I often realize that my interest is misconstrued, and there's hope in their eyes that I find them romantically attractive. I doubt that would be the case if I was ordinary looking.

I think that's why some beautiful women often come off as bitchy. They find it hard just to have a regular, friendly conversation with a man. It becomes an assumption that if he approaches, he's interested. That can be humorously untrue at times...like he may just want to tell you that's there's tp stuck to your shoe.

As I commented on the column on the nervous dater, I am confused by the whole internet dating thing. I bring this up because I failed miserably at it and I ended up walking away feeling really unattractive.

However, on the other hand, I get approached in real life way more often and a lot more often than some of my drop dead gorgeous friends. I'd love to think that it's my winning personality and my own drop-dead gorgeous looks, but I think there's something there that's more about availability.

If I look at a man as if I find him attractive--and I often do this because I'm not aware that I'm doing it--that almost always gets their attention. I find that if a guy is single, he'll always come over and talk. If a guy is married (and not looking) they may get a bit stuck up about it(but at least I know). I've tried to be less obvious about this, but the truth is I love looking at people, it's as natural as breathing for me, and I sometimes end up getting surprising results.

"you can walk into any room and be instantly at peace with any woman (like, NOW, goddamit), then you probably haven't met many women."

That's just stupid. How could someone NOT meet multitudes of women? A slightly better question might be, why the devil should anyone ever be nervous around any particular group of them?

Bottom line, and this is fairly crude, but crude bluntness is sometimes appropriate: Pussy is replaceable. If one says no and isn't interested, move on to the next attractive one. What possible reason is there to not approach someone that you're VERY attracted to? If she's so cocky she thinks she's out of your league, let her live alone on her pedestal, there are lots of fish in the sea and all that. She's removing herself, not you, you can just move on. See what I'm saying? I don't acknowledge attractiveness as something that makes someone out of reach.

MONEY however, is something else entirely.

The rest of what you said crid, I have to say is pretty well on point.
-----------------

Me-I'm a little confused as to your follow up paragraph.
-----------------

lovelysoul is dead on the money.

Thank you, sofar! Yes boys, remember: even when a woman acts like a bitch toward you, it's your fault!

@ dee nile I didn't say she was being a bitch. "Shy" would be more accurate. It takes her a while to relax, smile and laugh around guys she's just met, and it might come across as aloof or stuck-up. As a result, she probably scares off and turns off a lot of great guys.

Nor did I say it was anyone's fault. I used to live in bad neighborhood. Soon after I moved to a good one, some guy came up and tapped on the window of my car right after I parked at the DMV. The first thing I did was make sure my doors were locked, but it turned out he just wanted to warn me that the line at the DMV was 2 hours long.

I wasn't blaming anyone, but suggesting that our behavior is often just the knee-jerk result of our past experiences.

> Pussy is replaceable.

Do your multitudes appreciate the nuance of your perspective?

> lovelysoul is dead on the money.

No, but wouldn't that be great?

> Do your multitudes appreciate the nuance of your perspective?

Do your lonely masturbations give succor?

Sucker punched, I got nuthin'

Do none of you remember the "Ginger or Mary Ann" question?

Honestly!

First time I saw it on a tee-shirt, it was printed like this:

[_] Ginger

[✔] Mary Ann

I tried to buy it off the guy's back, but he said no way.

My uncle told me: "never marry a pretty woman. If you marry a just-cute woman you will get twice as much for half the price"

Never marry the really pretty girls. There will be a point where they think they are worth more than you can give them, and will cheat on you. Plus, what guy wants every other guy around staring at his wife everywhere they go...

Better to marry a plain woman who has all of the other wonderful characteristics that most of us men look for in wives. A plain woman who is very, very happy has a radiance that cannot be surpassed by any beauty queen.

Too pretty is like too rich, right?

Out there with yeti and flying saucers.

My husband moved in with someone that HIS family told me, "looks like a tranny, NO blow job could possibly be that good"...that you'd leave your wife and kids. Well, he did. Did this before the house was even sold.

There is beauty, and then there are those who, despite their looks, are desperate enough to destroy anything if that's what the guy wants. Narcissism, in the male case here, brings on an entirely different version of attraction.

Love me, love my looks, fear me, obey me, aren't I great?
It can be all ass backwards as well.

...and yes, he's a (gulp) "good looking man".

My theory is that there's a threshold of attractiveness where once you cross that point no one is really out of your league. Say like a 7 out of 10. If you're a 7 then not every person you consider a 9 or 10 is going to be into you, but it's a good bet that some of them will-either because they find your build/hair/features particularly attractive, or because you find them particularly attractive and have thus overranked them relative to what they/society consider themselves. So as a 7, then your best strategy is to hit on as many 9 and 10s as possible and chances are that SOME of them will be into you.

On the other hand, if you're a 3 then you're probably not going to be pulling in 10s. You're better off focusing on people only slightly out of your league because A) it's a better use of your time and B) you won't have your self-esteem shattered with constant rejections.

All of this applies to both men and women. And my guess is that peoples' responses here are going to be heavily affected by their own level of attractiveness.

Shannon said "All of this applies to both men and women. And my guess is that peoples' responses here are going to be heavily affected by their own level of attractiveness."

I would guess that responses here are affected by experience...

This reminded me of an old song. :-D

There is an old saying beauty is skin deep -- ugly goes to the bone. I have seen some women that are fantastically gorgeous on the outside. But when you talk to them -- they have the brains of a turnip or an attitude or opinions that are just so offensive that you want runs screaming the other way.

At the same time I have found "average" women that just turn me on because they are sweet, smart, kind and fun to be around.