Ladies: Define "Player" please.
Options
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
