Ladies: Define "Player" please.
mauryr
Posts: 385
Is a man a "player" by simply seeing more than one woman romantically, or is there a certain measure of deceit involved? In other words: If you're seeing a guy non-exclusively - and this is clear... is he, in your opinion, a "player"? What if you're just dating, and exclusivity hasn't been discussed, so it's still ambiguous? "Player" then?
Or, is a "player" another word for a "cheater"? In other words, it's agreed that you're in an exclusive relationship, but he's with other women, on the side, contrary to your agreement?
Or, is a "player" just someone who's interested in sex, and will pretend to be interested in "the real you" (or whatever it takes) to get that goal?
Or, do you have a better definition?
Or, is a "player" another word for a "cheater"? In other words, it's agreed that you're in an exclusive relationship, but he's with other women, on the side, contrary to your agreement?
Or, is a "player" just someone who's interested in sex, and will pretend to be interested in "the real you" (or whatever it takes) to get that goal?
Or, do you have a better definition?
0
Replies
-
In my world, a "player" is someone that pulls a lot of attention from their preferred gender(s). It can be done openly and in good humor, or it can be done through deceit and manipulation. It doesn't even have to be sex, it can just be getting people to buy you drinks, or having others all want to come up and dance with you.
That's what I think anyway. I always joke with my bestie that she's a play-yaaaa cause she has mad game with many dudes on her tail.0 -
Well, it seems to have a negative connotation in most conversations I've heard (and read here), especially when a woman is describing a man.
Seems to have another meaning, when used by same gendered friends - "yo, playa.!" is waaay different than "Him? He's a playa.".
Oh, and yeah, I was "accused" of being a player, because I wasn't into "going to the next level" (aka exclusivity) in a new relationship :-)0 -
To me, a player is someone that 'plays' a game to their own advantage and/or gain. Usually, without any thought or care for the other person.
Lacking integrity, manipulative, dishonest, deceitful, insincere, they are just out for themselves.
So yeah, a cheat is a player. A person who is pretending to be in a relationship when they only want sex/money. A person pretends to like you when they actually don't...........grrr!!0 -
Oh, and yeah, I was "accused" of being a player, because I wasn't into "going to the next level" (aka exclusivity) in a new relationship :-)
I dont think if you were honest about your intentions - you said you didnt see a future with that person, but you sincererly tried - you could ever be called a player!
However, if you tend to jump from one non exclusive relationship to another, then I'd say you would know you're not really looking for anything serious, but giving the impression you are - player!0 -
Hmmmm....0
-
However, if you tend to jump from one non exclusive relationship to another, then I'd say you would know you're not really looking for anything serious, but giving the impression you are - player!
So it seems that the important part is "but (if you are) giving the impression you are" - which is a deception. So, in your view, deception is a key part, I see.0 -
<<< guy perspective here. I personally hate being called a player. I tell every girl i talk to that i am not looking for a girlfriend in the beginning of a relationship. Whether its just friends or becomes something more. A player, PLAYS with a woman's emotions and feeljngs, leading them on, using them, etc. Cheating could be a factor but if it's known that there is no relationship then a woman knows its not like they dont.
Edit: didnt see your post anna. But youre exactly right imo0 -
Like others have mentioned, I think it comes down to motive & "disclosure".
Especially like Anna said about manipulation and deceit.
Players play games, and they know what they're doing. They play the games without disclosing the fact that they have no interest in a relationship. They might even flat out LIE and say they are looking for something when they actually aren't.0 -
Player to me is someone who purposely plays with someone else's emotions by lying or being scandalous.
I've said this before, I multi date and am far from a player.0 -
Like other here, I'd agree the players like to juggle many relationships at once, with no intentions of serious relationships. when I picture a player I see the "how you doing" kind of guy looking out for #1 - himself. Gold chains around the neck are optional.0
-
However, if you tend to jump from one non exclusive relationship to another, then I'd say you would know you're not really looking for anything serious, but giving the impression you are - player!
So it seems that the important part is "but (if you are) giving the impression you are" - which is a deception. So, in your view, deception is a key part, I see.
Yes, that is right. The player know's what s/he's doing. The 'playee' does not have a clue!0 -
I think that I'd agree here. Deceit to get sex is the central notion of "playerhood". The player knows what they're doing, the playee doesn't. Unfair. In a way, it's a form of theft, as one party invests their time and resources in a relationship, without true information.
As I think about it, it dawns on me that there is another form of "player", with a different form of deception... based on the assumption that in the romantic realm, it could be said that men's prime asset is their exclusivity, and women's is their sexuality. (a generality, not a rule, of course). In other words, women tend to be the gatekeepers of sex, and men tend to be the gatekeepers of commitment.
A male "player" games a woman to get at her sexuality. A female "player" games a man to get at his exclusivity. (again, not a world of gender absolutes, but tendencies)
What do you think here?0 -
If I am intimately involved with a guy, then I should be the only one.
Doesn't mean we need to be girlfriend and boyfriend, go out all the time, see each other and talk every damn day, but definitely not trying to share love juices.
Just saying.
If a man needs more than one lady, then he's playing a game....0 -
I think that I'd agree here. Deceit to get sex is the central notion of "playerhood". The player knows what they're doing, the playee doesn't. Unfair. In a way, it's a form of theft, as one party invests their time and resources in a relationship, without true information.
As I think about it, it dawns on me that there is another form of "player", with a different form of deception... based on the assumption that in the romantic realm, it could be said that men's prime asset is their exclusivity, and women's is their sexuality. (a generality, not a rule, of course). In other words, women tend to be the gatekeepers of sex, and men tend to be the gatekeepers of commitment.
A male "player" games a woman to get at her sexuality. A female "player" games a man to get at his exclusivity. (again, not a world of gender absolutes, but tendencies)
What do you think here?
Agree with this as a generality, but additionally think that there's an emotional piece that men can be the gatekeepers to even after commitment is established (sometimes commitment is basically exchanged for sex. and commitment can sometimes be a shallow thing without the emotional piece that goes along with it.)
I think this emotional piece is really what women want maybe more than the word "committment"? There are a lot of exceptions, but my experience is that compartmentalizing these things and withholding certain investments (especially emotional) is often more natural for men. The ability to do this also makes it easier for some men to be players, I guess.
I don't mean this as man bashing- hope that's not how it comes across. I compartmentalized and withheld emotions plenty in my early 20's, but think it was less nature and maybe more nurture/culture/peer groups.0 -
What bugs me about the "player" thing is that they are seen as "inherently evil people" that just exist regardless, whereas IMO they are more the result of the system (relationships/sexuality) as it is.
In other words:
Casual sex -
Percentage of men ready to have casual sex: 80%,
percentage of women ready to have casual sex: 20%
Relationship/commitment -
Percentage of men interested in a more committed relationship: 20%,
percentage of women interested in a more committed relationship: 80%
Can anyone see a problem of supply and demand here? (You can call it "gatekeeping")
So as you can see, there is a little bit of a disagreement here. What can these 80% of men do to reach a larger pool of women? (the 20% who are OK with casual sex won't be enough I'm afraid, so they need to extend the pool to the 80% that are only interested in a more committed relationship)
So yes, players weren't born "evil" with the mind to "play", they are just trying to fit in as they can in this unbalanced relationship economy in order to satisfy their needs.0 -
someone who does their best to see how many girls they can
1. get to sleep with them
2. get to fall for them
3. get to not care about the fact that they are one of many and still fall for them and sleep with them
4. love and leave without it affecting them
Basically they are collectors with love for stats and reputation more than what they actually collect. the play the game but dont want the prize.0 -
What bugs me about the "player" thing is that they are seen as "inherently evil people" that just exist regardless, whereas IMO they are more the result of the system (relationships/sexuality) as it is.
In other words:
Casual sex -
Percentage of men ready to have casual sex: 80%,
percentage of women ready to have casual sex: 20%
Relationship/commitment -
Percentage of men interested in a more committed relationship: 20%,
percentage of women interested in a more committed relationship: 80%
Can anyone see a problem of supply and demand here? (You can call it "gatekeeping")
So as you can see, there is a little bit of a disagreement here. What can these 80% of men do to reach a larger pool of women? (the 20% who are OK with casual sex won't be enough I'm afraid, so they need to extend the pool to the 80% that are only interested in a more committed relationship)
So yes, players weren't born "evil" with the mind to "play", they are just trying to fit in as they can in this unbalanced relationship economy in order to satisfy their needs.
I dont think men are anywhere near as low as 20% in wanting a relationship!!! I know/and have known plenty of men that can't be on their own for 5 mins!! So, I disagree that that is the 'excuse' of a player!!
A player gets off on playing. EG A decent guy just after sex actually feels bad about 'using' a woman 'just' for sex. And feels even worse if he had to lie to get there.
There is a big difference it the 2 types of people. (women can be players too!)0 -
I think that I'd agree here. Deceit to get sex is the central notion of "playerhood". The player knows what they're doing, the playee doesn't. Unfair. In a way, it's a form of theft, as one party invests their time and resources in a relationship, without true information.
As I think about it, it dawns on me that there is another form of "player", with a different form of deception... based on the assumption that in the romantic realm, it could be said that men's prime asset is their exclusivity, and women's is their sexuality. (a generality, not a rule, of course). In other words, women tend to be the gatekeepers of sex, and men tend to be the gatekeepers of commitment.
A male "player" games a woman to get at her sexuality. A female "player" games a man to get at his exclusivity. (again, not a world of gender absolutes, but tendencies)
What do you think here?
I dont think sex or commitment is the only motive of a player. I think its more of an ego thing!0 -
Julesboots, you bring emotion into the equation, and you name men as the gatekeepers of this commodity.
Initially, I was going to say "why men as gatekeeper? We have emotions too, you know."... but as I thought about it, you're right. I think men have to make significant effort to satisfy a woman emotionally. It just doesn't come as naturally to us (well, me at least). The land of emotion is a strange, warped world, with rules that - if they even exist - are hidden to us. But that's a little off point on this "what's a player" idea. I guess that you're driving at this: If a man gets involved emotionally, it's an indicator that he's sincere (and therefore not a "player")? He delivers what a woman desires, at some "cost" to himself? In other words, not just "take take take" (like a "player")? (or have I just uncovered another player's strategy?)0 -
Thank-you all for your thoughtful, and non-bashy input. It's a pleasure to share such ideas... such potentially incendiary ideas.
So many things to say here (and everything below is just my opinion, even though I might assert it as fact!)
Annapixie, I was going to reply to flimflam just the OPPOSITE of your view... that I believe that it's far GREATER than 80% of unattached men that would be interested in casual sex. This doesn't rule out the fact that a large portion of unattached men also want good relationships. I don't see these options as mutually exclusive to an unattached male. In other words, most any unattached man would engage in "opportunistic sex" if offered, even if he's interested in finding a committed relationship. I don't think that this is true of most uncommitted women, or at least at the same frequency. I also believe that most ATTACHED men would engage in opportunistic sex if offered, IF there were no consequences (which is not the world we live in, of course). Again, I don't think this is true of many attached women, either. Basic gender difference, I believe.
However, FlimFlam, I believe that it is certainly possible to be an "evil player" as you called it. Even romantic relations are "transactions" of a sort, as unromantic as that sounds. Each party makes representations about the transaction, and each party makes an investment. If a man deceives women in order to have sex, then she is making an investment of her time and resources (one of which is her sexuality) under false representations.
As I mentioned earlier, that is very much like theft.
Even to satisfy one's "regular" worldly needs, theft is not acceptable, of course. In the "real" world, one also makes concessions (to work, trade, etc) for having one's needs fulfilled, in a supply/demand economy. As you indirectly pointed out, the costs depend upon the supply and demand ratio, in both the romantic and "real" worlds.
By the way, essentially 100% of women can supply sex. Just not casual sex (eg without certain "costs"). Conversely, essentially 100% of men can supply commitment, just not casual "cost"-free commitment... so the laws of romantic supply and demand work in both directions. It depends upon what resource you desire, and it seems to me to be pretty balanced, in terms of availability. Men want what is in short supply from women, women want what is in short supply from men.
However, Jephamooi, while I understand and empathize with you, I kinda disagree in a certain way with your statements: "If I am intimately involved with a guy, then I should be the only one. " and "If a man needs more than one lady, then he's playing a game....". These are not facts; These are YOUR opinions/philosophies, and if your partner shares them, then that's a good thing.
I can tell you with certainty that not all men (or women) share this philosophy, and this is where the "player" angle comes in...
I believe that many women expect that this is the "unwritten rule", and it needn't be said out loud, it's just understood. NOT saying this explicitly is the exact converse of what I wrote in a previous paragraph about an "evil player". If you expect exclusivity, but don't let the guy know this until after he's involved, then you've asked for him to invest his resources (one of which is his independence) under false representations... by which I mean the following:
If nothing is requested, then nothing has been promised, and nothing should be expected.
"Dating" goes something like this: You both do a certain little dance with each other for a while, and see what develops. When the time is right, the conversation about expectations must be had. Until then, If nothing is asked, then nothing has been promised, and nothing should be expected.
If you feel that having a conversation about exclusivity might scare off many men, you are probably (certainly) right. But I, for one, feel that if you don't have that conversation, but maintain those expectations firmly, you're being deceptive... and you might then call this man is a "player" if he's subsequently not exclusive to you... while he (justly, IMHO) feels that he's committed no foul.
This "unwritten law" thing cuts both ways, of course... There are men who think that "if I (buy you dinner, drinks, spend time, am exclusive etc) I expect you to have sex with me" is the unwritten rule - and it would scare off many, if not most women if he said this, explicitly. However it would be only fair of him to be up-front, if that was his rigid expectation. This way a woman could choose to opt-out, without being called a nasty name by a guy who thought he was cheated, because he "invested" and she didn't play by the "unwritten rules"... just like the guy discussed in the paragraph above might be called a "player" for not rigidly adhering to the unwritten "I should be the only one" exclusivity rule.
If it goes unsaid, there is no promise, and therefore should be no expectation. In either direction.
Just for the record - I'm not saying that men should expect sex for their "investment" (of attention, exclusivity, buying drinks, gifts, dinner, spending time, whatever). But some men do indeed expect this, unfortunately. Just like some women expect exclusivity for their in-kind "investment".
In other words, It seems that some men are not respectful of what many women consider their most cherished "possession" - and some women are not respectful of what many men consider theirs; It is an unfortunate situation where many people can't see things from another's point of view, across gender lines.
Oops, I think I just threw a firebomb there. Comparing a woman's granting of sex with a man's granting of exclusivity? That each is sensitive about granting this "precious possession" to another person? "Some men fear commitment" "Some women are prudes" "Some men are players" "Some women are tramps". It seems like these common statements stem from this.
Now Yoovie, YOUR definition is hard-core. A "player" is a collector, who does it for sport, with no concern for others. Period. Simple, and to the point. And AnnaPixie, I see you agree, as you mention that it's just an ego gratification game.
This has been an enjoyable exercise for me, but perhaps I think too much :-)0 -
I would be thoroughly disappointed if any relationship of mine was ever based on the swapping of sex for emotion or vice versa in any ratio :grumble: .
I dont think the dynamics of any 'relationship' has anything to do with a 'player'. So, I think you're translating it into something it's not IMO!
Women want sex too! I fail to see how men dont see this!!! And, whilst men may not fully get our emotional and ****ed up hormonal side, men want companionship, tenderness, cuddles, laughs, sharing of love/life/fear/desire, etc etc etc just as much as women do!
I went to a wedding last Satruday, and the the bride was all smiles while the groom couldnt stop weeping thoughout the ceremony!! Now I know the men here will say he was crying cos of the loss of his freedom....:laugh: ..... and that is really funny, but I know that he was simply overcome with emotion!! He told me so the next day.
So, like I say, the translation of player into relationships and swapping sex for emotion to a greater or lesser degree is just not how most people are in life. Perhaps where YOU are in life though, so :flowerforyou:0 -
What bugs me about the "player" thing is that they are seen as "inherently evil people" that just exist regardless, whereas IMO they are more the result of the system (relationships/sexuality) as it is.
In other words:
Casual sex -
Percentage of men ready to have casual sex: 80%,
percentage of women ready to have casual sex: 20%
Relationship/commitment -
Percentage of men interested in a more committed relationship: 20%,
percentage of women interested in a more committed relationship: 80%
Can anyone see a problem of supply and demand here? (You can call it "gatekeeping")
So as you can see, there is a little bit of a disagreement here. What can these 80% of men do to reach a larger pool of women? (the 20% who are OK with casual sex won't be enough I'm afraid, so they need to extend the pool to the 80% that are only interested in a more committed relationship)
So yes, players weren't born "evil" with the mind to "play", they are just trying to fit in as they can in this unbalanced relationship economy in order to satisfy their needs.
A bad economy is no excuse for deceptive business practices!
Oh wait, we're talking about casual sex. Hm, more women might be into it if you paid us for it.
Oh wait, that's not legal in most states, is it? Oh well, that never stopped anyone. Better to buy a prostitute than tell your latest arm candy you love her so she'll have sex with you. The prostitute is less likely to stalk you afterward. :laugh:0 -
Annapixie:I would be thoroughly disappointed if any relationship of mine was ever based on the swapping of sex for emotion or vice versa in any ratio :grumble: .
I'd be disappointed, as well, but I think that there is a "give and take" of various needs in a relationship. If it becomes one-sided, then, well, it usually ends. I think you'd agree that sex, emotion, attention, thoughtfulness, exclusivity and other attributes are shared, and flow back and forth between participants. Each endeavors to satisfy the other's needs. It's my belief that relationships sour, and eventually dissolve when this exchange is no longer equitable for the parties. It's not like there's a "ledger", but somewhere, perhaps subconsciously, in each person's head there's a sense of if things are "fair" or not, if the relationship is delivering satisfaction or not. It's not a "romantic" notion. To look at relationships in this way means that one has to step out of the subjective role, the one that's filled with the undeniably wonderful, and wonderfully human feelings (and sometimes difficult feelings) and try to make sense of the patterns of behavior. I can understand one not wanting to do this, and pierce the "magic" of the subjective experience of it.
I dont think the dynamics of any 'relationship' has anything to do with a 'player'. So, I think you're translating it into something it's not IMO!
Well, I respectfully disagree. If someone behaves as a "player" - in any of the senses discussed here, it is a form of a "relationship". If you choose to define "relationship" more narrowly, for instance: a "good" relationship eg a "committed relationship" a "loving caring relationship", a relationship where both parties have a mutual understanding of monogamy,relationships where the people involved feel that very subjective "magic" etc, then I can agree with you. But I believe that "player", "cheater", "tramp", "prude", "a good man", "fear of commitment", "good woman", "chaste", "easy going", "high maintenance""flirt", "gold-digger", "honest", "deceptive" etc are all forms of relationships, in addition to the "good" relationships mentioned earlier. (I was thinking about asking the group for definitions of each of these at some point, as well) You may seek your ideal, which may contain characteristics of one or more of the above, in some other variation. All of these are driven, in my opinion, in some part by gender predispositions.
To me, it's clear that there are some "relationships" - in the "good" sense I believe you mean - that the understandings/behaviors are asymmetrical - and one party feels unhappy about it. Perhaps this is where the label "player" comes in, and some of the other concepts of asymmetrical behaviors I've previously mentioned apply.Women want sex too! I fail to see how men dont see this!!! And, whilst men may not fully get our emotional and ****ed up hormonal side, men want companionship, tenderness, cuddles, laughs, sharing of love/life/fear/desire, etc etc etc just as much as women do!
Of course women want sex too. Of course men see this. Men and women tend to want different things from sex, and again, though it's not romantic, it's biology. Men are usually more overt about it, and women more subtle...
Men tend to want sex with as many women as possible, with the women displaying the highest characteristics of health and fertility that they can attract (features like youth, glossy hair, body proportions, symmetry). Women want sex with the fewest, best male specimens possible, the ones that exhibit the traits of being a good father, provider, protector, and vigor as possible. Both want other stuff in common too - intelligence, compatibility, health, physical comfort etc as well, of course. To at least a certain extent, gender predispositions are beyond our conscious control - we're hard wired to have these predispositions. (No, this doesn't exonerate bad behavior, IMHO, we do have free will, after all) This is why older man/younger woman couplings are far more common than the other way 'round. This is also why women are more selective then men in who they'll sleep with. This is also why male infidelity is more frequent than female infidelity. (Female infidelity is also common, but it tends to have different characteristics, that line up with the "fewest, best" criteria - in other words, male infidelity tends to be with more partners than female infidelity)
Of course, this is not an absolute rule - there are broad variations in this behavior. However, the fact that whole industries exist to support and capitalize on this behavior is a good indication that most people subscribe to this belief - consciously or not - and they vote with their behavior... and money. With absolute, clockwork like regularity. (Advertising exploits this with great efficiency, cosmetics industry, fitness industry, fashion industry, even car designs are "masculine" or "feminine" in terms of projecting "power" or "femininity"... this list goes on and on, and I believe that one would have to work hard to convince one's self that this isn't the case).
It's also wired into men that if they "invest" in a woman, that she guarantee fidelity, so his genetic investment (his chance of furthering his genetic line) is not for naught. This is the main trade of mutual fidelity, from the male perspective. Again, this isn't a conscious behavior, but it's quite obvious (to me at least), that male jealousy is the expression of this basic drive. There is a female counterpart to this, as well, but I'm not gonna get into it right now. (see the paper referenced below for more)
I went to a wedding last Satruday, and the the bride was all smiles while the groom couldnt stop weeping thoughout the ceremony!! Now I know the men here will say he was crying cos of the loss of his freedom....:laugh: ..... and that is really funny, but I know that he was simply overcome with emotion!! He told me so the next day.
Yes, male/female behavior is not a world of absolutes. It is a continuum, with both genders having various amounts of all traits, which vary greatly between individuals. But male and female norms are just that: Norms. There is plenty of variation. The fact that you've noted this exceptional behavior as standing out from the norm kinda tacitly underscores that this "norm" exists. (and one of these norms is men "mourning" their loss of freedom... eg exclusivity)
So, like I say, the translation of player into relationships and swapping sex for emotion to a greater or lesser degree is just not how most people are in life.
I reiterate my thought - as unpopular as it might be - that when one is in the "subjective experience" of a relationship, (AKA "how most people are in life") all of this stuff is usually not in the forefront of one's mind - myself included. However, much of people's behavior is clearly explained by some of the stuff I've mentioned - even though it's not poetic, or romantic.
You might enjoy this paper on this subject, about "Sexual Strategies" from an evolutionary perspective.
http://utexas.academia.edu/DavidMBuss/Papers/283439/Sexual_strategies_theory_An_evolutionary_perspective_on_human_mating
Please be warned, it contains lots of very uncomfortable, "non-romantic" analysis of gender behavior, and it requires the reader to step out of the subjective position of being involved in the "experiment". This particular paper is considered quite controversial in some circles, and a seminal study in many. There's other good stuff out there, as well, but this is the most direct I've found.
The notion of a "player" is a form of sexual "strategy". I was interested in exploring similar but complimentary strategies, which I discussed previously in this thread... both for purely intellectual reasons, and for personal ones, as I've not seen any discussions of this anywhere else - and this partially anonymous forum is a great place to hear candid viewpoints. Again, thanks for your input, and candor. It's appreciated.Perhaps where YOU are in life though, so :flowerforyou:
Thank-you for your observations, and :flowerforyou:, as well :-)0 -
I don't give a flying damn about biology, scarcity, blah blah. Trying to justify lying to someone about your feelings so he/she will have sex with you is disgusting. I'm dead serious, be a man (or woman) about it and pay for it instead.
To lie to someone about something like that is to attempt to enslave them. You are giving them information that is false to convince them to do what you want them to do, which they would not do if they had the truth. It's one of the worst things you can do to another human being that doesn't involve violence.0 -
@Mauryr - I agree pretty much with everything you wrote (yes, I read it all :laugh: )
This is my point, yes. Everyone on earth would like to be in a good serious relationship (well, a huge majority of people). However, in the meantime, men are just more interested in casual sex than women are.it's far GREATER than 80% of unattached men that would be interested in casual sex. This doesn't rule out the fact that a large portion of unattached men also want good relationships.
More food for thought?
I would tend to agree with the following definition of a player:
"If you feel that having a conversation about exclusivity might scare off many men, you are probably (certainly) right. But I, for one, feel that if you don't have that conversation, but maintain those expectations firmly, you're being deceptive... and you might then call this man is a "player" if he's subsequently not exclusive to you... while he (justly, IMHO) feels that he's committed no foul."
A player is thus a man:
- with who you have had the exclusivity conversation, and who >lied< during that conversation (otherwise he simply wasn't on the same page),
- who hinted >strongly< and in an >obvious fashion< that you were exclusive (though this one won't stand much ground in front of a tribunal as it lacks concreteness)
Now, a Pick Up Artist (PUA) is someone who is able to successfully sleep with a woman, in a short amount of time (often able to have sex with a woman just a few hours after meeting her for the first time).
I want to point out the difference, as clearly then a PUA is not a player (although they are often assimilated): who would assume exclusivity after (even before!) a one night stand? That would be silly now, wouldn't it? So a PUA (whose goal is to sleep with as many women as possible as possible with as little time spent as possible) isn't a player. Funny eh?
The only players are probably bad PUAs then... Since good PUAs would be able to sleep with a new woman often enough to not get to this exclusivity stage with one given woman.
Unless (and this is what I believe) the reality is simply that women will assume exclusivity (by default) whereas men do not assume exclusivity (because it suits us, even though we probably know women assume exclusivity - but hey, why would >they< be more right than us?).0 -
@mauyar - You've taken the romance out of a loving one on one relationship and analysed it to death!! :laugh: I would seriously have to be stoned to think about it that deeply. This hangover isn't helping either.......:glasses:
Thanks for your thoughts too. Interesting reading :flowerforyou:0 -
@Mauryr - I agree pretty much with everything you wrote (yes, I read it all :laugh: )
This is my point, yes. Everyone on earth would like to be in a good serious relationship (well, a huge majority of people). However, in the meantime, men are just more interested in casual sex than women are.it's far GREATER than 80% of unattached men that would be interested in casual sex. This doesn't rule out the fact that a large portion of unattached men also want good relationships.
More food for thought?
I would tend to agree with the following definition of a player:
"If you feel that having a conversation about exclusivity might scare off many men, you are probably (certainly) right. But I, for one, feel that if you don't have that conversation, but maintain those expectations firmly, you're being deceptive... and you might then call this man is a "player" if he's subsequently not exclusive to you... while he (justly, IMHO) feels that he's committed no foul."
A player is thus a man:
- with who you have had the exclusivity conversation, and who >lied< during that conversation (otherwise he simply wasn't on the same page),
- who hinted >strongly< and in an >obvious fashion< that you were exclusive (though this one won't stand much ground in front of a tribunal as it lacks concreteness)
Now, a Pick Up Artist (PUA) is someone who is able to successfully sleep with a woman, in a short amount of time (often able to have sex with a woman just a few hours after meeting her for the first time).
I want to point out the difference, as clearly then a PUA is not a player (although they are often assimilated): who would assume exclusivity after (even before!) a one night stand? That would be silly now, wouldn't it? So a PUA (whose goal is to sleep with as many women as possible as possible with as little time spent as possible) isn't a player. Funny eh?
The only players are probably bad PUAs then... Since good PUAs would be able to sleep with a new woman often enough to not get to this exclusivity stage with one given woman.
Unless (and this is what I believe) the reality is simply that women will assume exclusivity (by default) whereas men do not assume exclusivity (because it suits us, even though we probably know women assume exclusivity - but hey, why would >they< be more right than us?).
I wonder how the world would have progressed if everyone just shagged everyone and there was no monogamy at all? By all accounts you guys think that is how we should have evolved? So, why didnt we?0 -
I wonder how the world would have progressed if everyone just shagged everyone and there was no monogamy at all? By all accounts you guys think that is how we should have evolved? So, why didnt we?
I think we'd be too busy having and looking for sex to do much else? Societal advancement would stop, and who would raise the kids?0 -
I don't think any of us has said this is how we think humans should have evolved.I wonder how the world would have progressed if everyone just shagged everyone and there was no monogamy at all? By all accounts you guys think that is how we should have evolved? So, why didnt we?
We say (probably more) that this is what we think are the underlying dynamics of what happens in everyday relationships. Actually this dynamics is more based on where we come from - our respective, primary/original nature - than where we are going, so at the complete opposite of "society" and "civilization" which "prefers" monogamy for reasons such as the education of children.
I'll reply to your questions, just for fun.
"I wonder how the world would have progressed if everyone just shagged everyone and there was no monogamy at all?"
I would assume this is a question for the men since it pretty much only makes sense for men to be in non monogamous relationships (assuming a world without contraceptives) - this question is biased and of course any answer won't be acceptable to you (as a woman).
I don't think monogamy (for everyone) is a requirement for society. Some religious communities allow polygamy (if you are able to provide for your multiples wives and children). We can imagine a multitude of societies that wouldn't be based on monogamy, to say how they would perform today is very difficult.
Here are a few examples of social organizations for primates.
http://anthro.palomar.edu/behavior/behave_2.htm
To say that "players" and "PUAs", or "ladies men", "casanova" (and "cheaters"?) are advocating for a non monogamous civilization is a bit far fetched. I believe that most will feel a sincere need to "stabilise" too at some point in their life, but want to make the most of it since then.
Last thing on this, our current society isn't even monogamous anymore: it is now "fragmented families" and "stepfamilies" more and more (hardly monogamous at all).
So why don't we have a "non monogamous" society? Probably mostly for religious reasons in our "modern days" (0AD - 2000AD). Our deities mostly say the same thing: get married, don't cheat, stay in this marriage and be happy whatever the cost.
Probably encouraged by the fact that it is in the interest of our rulers (and probably, society itself) that society runs flawlessly (children, education, stable home, stable family produce good, useful individuals who follow the rules for our society - a good, solid family is a must for a kid's success and makes the family dependent on the system).
Nowadays, as religion slowly loses it grip on the people, as people are getting more and more educated, and as everyone wants to enjoy life to its fullest as much as everyone else (no need to sacrifice anymore for a greater cause) you can see more and more fragmented families as described above. Society is slowly adapting (more nurseries, more free time, part time jobs).
I'm actually of the opinion that "monogamy" is actually probably one of the best way to ensure the continuity of the species in the best terms and in the long run, but who is concerned about what and where the human species will be in 1000 years? Who cares really when you're in a nightclub and you see a girl is smiling at you?
Well I for one DO! And next time a girl smiles at me in a suspicious way, here is what I'm going to reply:
- I'm sorry miss, but I firmly believe that monogamous relationships are the best way to ensure the continuity of the human species in the long run. And you ain't going anywhere with me with that kind of attitude.
- I'm smiling because I've always known you were this kind of man. I knew it from the moment I saw you!
- My lady! (* kiss on the hand *) It is then our duty to copulate, and do our part as every responsible citizen should do!
(* walk away proudly, hand in hand, waving at a cheering crowd, the crowd is applauding with tears in the eyes still moved by what they just saw*)0 -
It could be biblical, or it could be how humans (both female and MALE) are actually wired!!! ??
Within this non-monogamous society that you think we have, the 'non monogamees' still gravitate toward another 'relationship'. Very, very few people, in terms of world copulating population, actually want to be jumping from bed to bed! Even you would tire of the 'work' and detachment involved........:laugh:
You forgot the comfort that prevails in' knowing' someone while you were walking away into the sunset with every woman that gives you the eye!....... :laugh:
(Not disagreeing with your 5 - 10 years shelf life of a relation ship though! We've had this discussion IRL and I tend to agree on that one. Perhaps us caps just like the middle ground
) 0
