Ladies: Define "Player" please.
Options
Replies
-
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 -
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:
I see both sides of this argument. I agree with the quote above, as well.
How we're wired? I think so - even though the environmental pressures that evolved these predispositions over millions of years are not present any more, or at least to nowhere near the same degree.
Men's muscles are used mainly for display, not for fighting off predators, or for protecting a mate from a competitor (well, not to the degree that they were in the times they were evolved), or really, even work in the fields or other strenuous manual labor. Women's breasts, figures, symmetry, age (well, to a much lesser degree than in earlier times) are also "just for show" - with modern health technology, they don't significantly increase the odds of their being able to conceive, bear or nurture live offspring... but still, the predispositions to be attracted to these traits drive gender behaviors, as crazy as that is in this modern era... Along with the evolved behaviors of male vs female predispositions on monogamy, playa.
Even Anna's statement about eventual stabilization, after a period of "non-monogamee-hood" - which is what Flim is mentioning, (and also what I suppose is Flim's theory about a "shelf-life" of a "stable" relationship which Anna cited) I believe are driven by these hard-wired (and perhaps biologically obsolete) behaviors.
These drives seem to be vestiges of our ancient past... but they're sooo much fun!
You guys are really interesting. And yes, Anna, I analyze stuff to death. We nerds do that for fun (and then use what we find to start a Facebook or Google etc :-) lol ).0 -
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...
..............................................................................................................................................................................
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.
I don't agree that men and women want different things from sex. Stereotype does not equal norm. In my experience, men are every bit as romantic as women and often more so. Of course many are not. I'm not interested in numbers, maybe I filter out those who fit the stereotype. The point is that men over a certain age (and often under it too!) who want to find one woman to love are the norm for many women out there and they are not hard to find.
I'm with you on behaviour being driven by subjective experience and I'd add values and beliefs to that too. Relationships are about communication and this is why they work best with someone who knows themselves well and has the confidence/courage to be completely honest. That way the subjective becomes the objective. I see players (male and female) and their victims as being at the opposite end of the continuum to those couples desribed above. They hide their motives (through deceit or ommission) to get what they want. Then there are the vast majority of people who are less aware of what drives their behaviour so they can't be honest about it and relationships sometimes work but sometimes become compromised by conflicting but largely unarticulated needs.
Edited to add: re-reading some of the comments - notwithstanding the above I agree that the gender stereotype regarding willingness to engage in casual sex fits with reality for many people. I think the causes are more cultural than biological.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....
I hate how people have expectations but never communicate. If both people didn’t talk about being exclusive, neither have a leg to stand on if the other person wasn’t exclusive. If one person ASSUMED it, that was their dumb mistake. Even if it’s not for emotional reasons, if you want to be exclusive for safe sex reasons, you should bring it up with your partner so there is a clear open dialog and both people come to an agreement. So many of the relational problems we have with people would be eliminated if we stopped assuming and started communicating.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....
Maybe he's looking for 'the one' and wants to use his time wisely by trying a bunch at once. . This allows him to compare and contrast more efficiently. He can then pick two or three, dump the rest and have a playoff. .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....
Maybe he's looking for 'the one' and wants to use his time wisely by trying a bunch at once. . This allows him to compare and contrast more efficiently. He can then pick two or three, dump the rest and have a playoff. .
Lol, playoff?
Plaaayyaaaaaaaaaaa0 -
Maybe he's looking for 'the one' and wants to use his time wisely by trying a bunch at once. . This allows him to compare and contrast more efficiently. He can then pick two or three, dump the rest and have a playoff. .
Sooooo..... wait.... on my thread you blast me for going out with other guys when the man I was seeing had not yet made me his girlfriend.... but it's ok for the guys to play this game. Yeah, that happens a lot with the guys around here.0
