5 ms·

It's foolish to have such a narrowminded opinion of "game". It's only called game; but in actuality is much more an art. Even if you're going to be so brash a

It's foolish to have such a narrowminded opinion of "game". It's only called game; but in actuality is much more an art. Even if you're going to be so brash as to consider it a game, do you still find it impossible to express personality and self-respect while remaining in the construct of rules? You seem to be answering "yes" to that question. Putting your reluctance to realize that "games (systems of rules)" and "art" have no fine line aside, the issue of "gender equality" that you pose makes no sense to me. I suppose it's because I have a much more complicated definition of a "true self," which to you seems to be "not treating women with what I consider 'respect' is immoral and wrong and is 'not me'", that I so strongly disagree with you about virtually everything you said above. Males and females have two completely different mating strategies, and rightly so. For you see, women are stuck with the burden of 9 months of having a baby grow inside them, plus taking care of the child, while men could potentially sire greater-than-the-human-population children every day. Women will obviously be more picky. Men, less so. Intersex competition will be very high and follow a distribution similar to the 80/20 rule, and multiple sexual partners (when it's possible to go undetected) will be beneficial to both sexes. At any rate, I suppose I'm trying to say three things: * Males and females have different strategies for sorting out an ideal mate. How you present yourself is part of your strategy. * If you're willing to always be your "best self," or what you would call "throwing away expression of personality" by "carefully crafting yourself" -- how does that make you not yourself? You are still you, and your actions are yours. * Evolutionary psychology -- it makes sense.

andreyf 16y ago
I don't know whether to laugh at or cry for you. Relationships are not an art, and they are not a game. If you want to out-strategize someone, go play Starcraft 2. If you want to analyze someone from an evolutionary psych perspective, go get a degree in psychiatry. Romantic relationships are about forming deep emotional connections, about being true with someone in a way that admits a very real risk of emotional agony. Until you grow the balls to take that gamble, you're simply missing the point.
- Helianthus16 16y ago
  Yes yes, this is one side of the coin; but you are willfully ignoring the other--willfully because it's presented in this topic. If there is no art to forming deep emotional connections, then there is nothing interesting about it. The game is the protocol, the communication of what "real risk" one is taking. PUAs always communicate that they are taking zero risk, _but_ they provide channels for women to also take zero risk. This is what makes them successful--they have mastered the shallow protocol. But your deep emotional connections are also a game, as is your real risk. You wouldn't fall in love on a first date, would you? You've got rules of engagement, I expect? But I thought it was about the real risk of emotional agony! No. What makes the game fun is when there is real risk, when you play for keeps. PUAs run the risk of forgetting why they got into the game to begin with.
- hpvic03 16y ago
  Sure, but relationships don't start that way. They start with an initial conversation and flirting, and if you can appear confident, funny, and slightly unavailable, then you get points. Why is that so evil? I don't buy the whole "I don't want to change myself" mantra. Certain behaviors are more attractive; so if you want women, do those behaviors. You don't have to go crazy and do all that weird PUA stuff, just do the important things; e.g. don't be needy or insecure and you're already ahead of the game.
  - andreyf 16y ago
    We might have to agree to disagree, but I'd rather not attract women by appearing more confident than I actually am. And yes, that means sometimes I'm needy and insecure. If that stops a woman from liking me, that's a choice she has a right to make. Maybe I've been lucky, but I've found no shortage of women (both friends and lovers) that have helped me through times of insecurity. It's not in any sense evil, I just think that as long as you keep up these "confident, funny and slightly unavailable" appearances, you neuter the possibility of a genuine emotional connection.
    - deleted 16y ago
      [deleted]
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
ajscherer 16y ago
"it makes sense" is a weak reason to accept an idea.
sliverstorm 16y ago
> the issue of "gender equality" that you pose makes no sense to me It already looses some of it's sense when we are talking in the context of relationships, and the methods and success of PUA's only serves to further confirm this.
natep 16y ago
Evolutionary psychology does make sense, but 1) Reality doesn't always "make sense" (e.g. quantum mechanics where many concepts have no macroscopic analogs) 2) Just because every species has gone through natural selection, doesn't mean that every single quality of them was selected for. It could be that certain qualities have no effect on fitness, or a negative one that is counteracted by more positive ones

andreyf 16y ago

I don't know whether to laugh at or cry for you. Relationships are not an art, and they are not a game. If you want to out-strategize someone, go play Starcraft 2. If you want to analyze someone from an evolutionary psych perspective, go get a degree in psychiatry. Romantic relationships are about forming deep emotional connections, about being true with someone in a way that admits a very real risk of emotional agony. Until you grow the balls to take that gamble, you're simply missing the point.

Helianthus16 16y ago
Yes yes, this is one side of the coin; but you are willfully ignoring the other--willfully because it's presented in this topic. If there is no art to forming deep emotional connections, then there is nothing interesting about it. The game is the protocol, the communication of what "real risk" one is taking. PUAs always communicate that they are taking zero risk, _but_ they provide channels for women to also take zero risk. This is what makes them successful--they have mastered the shallow protocol. But your deep emotional connections are also a game, as is your real risk. You wouldn't fall in love on a first date, would you? You've got rules of engagement, I expect? But I thought it was about the real risk of emotional agony! No. What makes the game fun is when there is real risk, when you play for keeps. PUAs run the risk of forgetting why they got into the game to begin with.
hpvic03 16y ago
Sure, but relationships don't start that way. They start with an initial conversation and flirting, and if you can appear confident, funny, and slightly unavailable, then you get points. Why is that so evil? I don't buy the whole "I don't want to change myself" mantra. Certain behaviors are more attractive; so if you want women, do those behaviors. You don't have to go crazy and do all that weird PUA stuff, just do the important things; e.g. don't be needy or insecure and you're already ahead of the game.
- andreyf 16y ago
  We might have to agree to disagree, but I'd rather not attract women by appearing more confident than I actually am. And yes, that means sometimes I'm needy and insecure. If that stops a woman from liking me, that's a choice she has a right to make. Maybe I've been lucky, but I've found no shortage of women (both friends and lovers) that have helped me through times of insecurity. It's not in any sense evil, I just think that as long as you keep up these "confident, funny and slightly unavailable" appearances, you neuter the possibility of a genuine emotional connection.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

ajscherer 16y ago

"it makes sense" is a weak reason to accept an idea.

sliverstorm 16y ago

> the issue of "gender equality" that you pose makes no sense to me It already looses some of it's sense when we are talking in the context of relationships, and the methods and success of PUA's only serves to further confirm this.

natep 16y ago

Evolutionary psychology does make sense, but 1) Reality doesn't always "make sense" (e.g. quantum mechanics where many concepts have no macroscopic analogs) 2) Just because every species has gone through natural selection, doesn't mean that every single quality of them was selected for. It could be that certain qualities have no effect on fitness, or a negative one that is counteracted by more positive ones