6 ms·

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 Starcraf

by 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]
  - potatolicious 16y ago
    > "but I'd rather not attract women by appearing more confident than I actually am" Having read some of the works in question - I have to correct a misconception. PUA isn't about false bravado - that's why the 3-second rule exists, so you approach the woman before your own insecurities kick in and your mind gets way ahead of itself. If anything, it's not an act, it's actual anxiety management so you don't act like a nervous buffoon. I don't see anything wrong with this. We accept insecurity from our friends, families, and other loved ones frequently - but we rarely accept it so readily from strangers. PUA is not the art of maintaining romantic interest, it's the art of initiating it between total strangers - and oftentimes the strategies employed are counter-productive for long-term relationships (which is why everything they say must be taken with a healthy dose of critical thought). > ""confident, funny and slightly unavailable" appearances, you neuter the possibility of a genuine emotional connection." And that's not what it's about. So here's the thing, PUAs work in a hyper-competitive environment where, even before their arrival, it was already a hotbed of attempted pickups and blatant come-ons. Their strategies are mostly about rising above the rabble of men trying to hook up with drunk girls and appearing more attractive than the sea of dudes in the room. All of this is still relevant to people who aren't in a sweaty nightclub and aren't just looking for one-night stands. "confident, funny, and slightly unavailable" is a great place to start, especially when your target is desirable and frequently hit on. You can connect all you want once you've beaten the crowd of suitors - that's the point.
ahlatimer 16y ago
You can't desire to analyze someone from an evolutionary psych perspective, out-strategize someone, or form a deep emotional connection at different points in a relationship? I have yet to form a deep emotional connection upon first coming in contact with another person. That's something that must grow with time. From my experience, even going in with the idea that I might get into a serious, long-term relationship with someone, there's a hurdle that I must overcome before I can get a girl to desire a deep emotional connection. The "game" is one means of overcoming that hurdle. Yes, it means adjusting your personality to fit the circumstance, but I do that all the time. Is that somehow uncouth to do so when the end-goal is a romantic relationship instead of getting funding, finding a job, making a new friend, or any other potential scenario that involves another person/people?
csallen 16y ago
Ugh, I hate to become an apologist for "the game", but I feel compelled. Whether you or anyone else want to admit it, girls (and guys) have a strong tendency to follow certain behavioral patterns as a result of both biological AND societal factors. And so relationships ARE about art. They require practice, experience, analysis, etc. Some people gain this naturally (or get practice at an early age). The result is that they can breeze through interactions with the opposite sex with relative ease. To observers, their love lives may seem beautiful, natural, and effortless. But others don't have it naturally, and for whatever reason don't get practice at an early age. They spend their lives muddling through social situations that they either don't understand or, worse, have an deeply-held misunderstanding of. A lot of guys don't know that what a girl says and what a girl wants may be two different things, and they often suffer heartbreak because of it. It is the height of arrogance to assume that these people have no business trying to figure out what they're doing wrong and improve.
photon_off 16y ago
Firstly, I apologize that my post emotionally confused you. If you've since decided whether to laugh or cry, and perhaps have even carried out the action, I'd love to be updated. When I said "it is art" I was not referring to "relationships". In retrospect, I suppose I was referring to life in general. At any rate, I most certainly made it clear that I don't feel "game" is not meant to be followed as a construct of rules. And, even if it were, there's plenty of room for personality, style, and identity. So we agree, relationships are not a game. However, you might find that listening to advice about how to deal with people could make meeting people and having them like you be a much easier process. Is taking advice allowed in your model of "true" relationships, or would you say something snappy like... If you want to take advice all day, watch Dr. Phil! I included evolutionary psychology only as a means to explain overall dating behavior and motivation which the op had asked about. I don't think I implied whipping out some sort of book about personal evo-psych to target a single person. Finally, what makes you think that "game" (as your narrow mind thinks it knows) forbids deep emotional connections and "truth"? If you want to make assumptions all day, then you should head over to intern-- oh... nevermind.
jsz0 16y ago
If you don't mind me asking how old are you? I have a feeling what you're saying was the way things used to be but these days if you don't employ at least some of these techniques you might as well be invisible. It's what is expected. You won't have any deep romantic relationship because the girl will be far more interested in the PUA expert. You'll never get a chance. I don't think it's a great evolution of personal relationships myself but in my experience that's how it works these days. From what I can tell women are pretty happy with the arrangement too. They're definitely not victims.
cabalamat 16y ago
> 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. That might be true for you. It clearly isn't true for everyone. Clearly there are some people who would rather not have "a very real risk of emotional agony" and their wants are just as real, just as authentic, as yours.
Rod 16y ago
Of course relationships are a game: two players, several actions available to each player, and payoffs dependent on both players' actions. That is, by definition, a game. But it gets more interesting. Relationships are power games, as the player with the most power will dictate the tempo and pace of the battle. If you have more options and are less invested in the relationship than your significant other, then you have power over her. This power gap translates into luxuries like avoiding visiting her family (too often, at least), or not bothering about remembering her girlfriends' names. Moreover, if she's constantly terrified that you'll leave her if she gets fat, she'll exercize often and stay in shape, so that she can sexually arouse you for years to come, thus disincentivizing you from dumping her. You reciprocate by paying attention to her, by pretending to listen to her illogical / irrational arguments, and by abstaining from (too much) philandering. This balance of terror works great for both parties.
- philwelch 16y ago
  What you've described may be how your relationships usually go, but it sounds a lot like a living hell to me, and is nothing like my experience.
  - Rod 16y ago
    Living hell for her, heaven for you!? Not really. My approach makes her obsession last longer. She never knows when she finally has you, so she keeps fighting to conquer your heart. Since this is a lifetime endeavor (or, perhaps, a death march), then the relationship never gets stale, and she never gets bored with you. Makes marriages last longer, is less traumatic for the kids, and (ultimately) is better for society. PS: next time your s.o. forces you to visit her boring family or some friends of her that you hate, you'll wish you had more power. Enjoy the whipping!!
    - philwelch 16y ago
      Your assumptions about my relationship are pretty deeply unfounded--I've never been forced to visit her family, nor do I hate her friends, nor have I ever been forced to visit them. There's no "whipping" involved--I'm every bit as free as I care to be. It's not a question of power at all--we don't seek power over each other so much as we work hard to keep our autonomy while sharing our lives together. It's difficult, but it's worthwhile as well. Building a strong relationship that respects the freedom of each partner is just as hard as keeping up one side of a power game, but it's more fulfilling in the end. Knowing that someone else truly and deeply loves you is a very comforting feeling, especially when you both know it's mutual. Trying to withhold that satisfaction and make your partner insecure just to keep her (literally) on the treadmill is an asshole thing to do, but ultimately it hurts you too. Winning your power-game style of relationship would be hell to me compared to the relationship I actually have. Look, I'll just address you point-by-point: Moreover, if she's constantly terrified that you'll leave her if she gets fat, she'll exercize often and stay in shape, so that she can sexually arouse you for years to come, thus disincentivizing you from dumping her when she hits the magic 30-year-old mark. Fat girls are underrated in my opinion, but there are plenty of strong women who can and do keep themselves in good shape for their own benefit. Of course, a self-starting woman like that is likely far too strong to put up with the kind of bullshit you're talking about. You reciprocate by paying attention to her, by pretending to listen to her illogical / irrational arguments I would rather not date stupid and irrational women. I prefer women whom I actually like paying attention to. Especially for a lifetime commitment! and by abstaining from (too much) philandering That's not a special favor; that's a basic part of being in a monogamous relationship. If monogamy is boring, have an open relationship and let the girl have some fun too. It might even spice up your sex life to have the odd threesome! The kind of relationship you advocate might be the best you can get--it may be genuinely difficult to have a genuinely good relationship like I'm talking about--but personally speaking, if the best relationship I can get is some adversarial power game, I'd rather go completely without. I have no fear of dying alone--I am comfortable with the notion. My personal suspicion: old married couples who treat their relationship like a power game are not happily married couples--they're like the couple in this story: http://www.violentacres.com/archives/497/happily-ever-after/ http://www.violentacres.com/archives/497/happily-ever-after/ Watching them was like watching a sick, evil little puppet show. He goaded her, she attacked him. He ignored her attacks, she escalated. Within minutes, dinner was ruined. They both looked supremely satisfied with this result. Before I turned to leave, the man reached out with a bony, desperate hand and clutched my arm. “Never, never get married,” he implored. I looked at his wife. Instead of looking offended, her eyes widened in tentative agreement. A slight nod of her head was like the period on the end of his sentence. That couple was trying to save my life."

by andreyf 16y ago

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]
- potatolicious 16y ago
  > "but I'd rather not attract women by appearing more confident than I actually am" Having read some of the works in question - I have to correct a misconception. PUA isn't about false bravado - that's why the 3-second rule exists, so you approach the woman before your own insecurities kick in and your mind gets way ahead of itself. If anything, it's not an act, it's actual anxiety management so you don't act like a nervous buffoon. I don't see anything wrong with this. We accept insecurity from our friends, families, and other loved ones frequently - but we rarely accept it so readily from strangers. PUA is not the art of maintaining romantic interest, it's the art of initiating it between total strangers - and oftentimes the strategies employed are counter-productive for long-term relationships (which is why everything they say must be taken with a healthy dose of critical thought). > ""confident, funny and slightly unavailable" appearances, you neuter the possibility of a genuine emotional connection." And that's not what it's about. So here's the thing, PUAs work in a hyper-competitive environment where, even before their arrival, it was already a hotbed of attempted pickups and blatant come-ons. Their strategies are mostly about rising above the rabble of men trying to hook up with drunk girls and appearing more attractive than the sea of dudes in the room. All of this is still relevant to people who aren't in a sweaty nightclub and aren't just looking for one-night stands. "confident, funny, and slightly unavailable" is a great place to start, especially when your target is desirable and frequently hit on. You can connect all you want once you've beaten the crowd of suitors - that's the point.

ahlatimer 16y ago

You can't desire to analyze someone from an evolutionary psych perspective, out-strategize someone, or form a deep emotional connection at different points in a relationship? I have yet to form a deep emotional connection upon first coming in contact with another person. That's something that must grow with time. From my experience, even going in with the idea that I might get into a serious, long-term relationship with someone, there's a hurdle that I must overcome before I can get a girl to desire a deep emotional connection. The "game" is one means of overcoming that hurdle. Yes, it means adjusting your personality to fit the circumstance, but I do that all the time. Is that somehow uncouth to do so when the end-goal is a romantic relationship instead of getting funding, finding a job, making a new friend, or any other potential scenario that involves another person/people?

csallen 16y ago

Ugh, I hate to become an apologist for "the game", but I feel compelled. Whether you or anyone else want to admit it, girls (and guys) have a strong tendency to follow certain behavioral patterns as a result of both biological AND societal factors. And so relationships ARE about art. They require practice, experience, analysis, etc. Some people gain this naturally (or get practice at an early age). The result is that they can breeze through interactions with the opposite sex with relative ease. To observers, their love lives may seem beautiful, natural, and effortless. But others don't have it naturally, and for whatever reason don't get practice at an early age. They spend their lives muddling through social situations that they either don't understand or, worse, have an deeply-held misunderstanding of. A lot of guys don't know that what a girl says and what a girl wants may be two different things, and they often suffer heartbreak because of it. It is the height of arrogance to assume that these people have no business trying to figure out what they're doing wrong and improve.

photon_off 16y ago

Firstly, I apologize that my post emotionally confused you. If you've since decided whether to laugh or cry, and perhaps have even carried out the action, I'd love to be updated. When I said "it is art" I was not referring to "relationships". In retrospect, I suppose I was referring to life in general. At any rate, I most certainly made it clear that I don't feel "game" is not meant to be followed as a construct of rules. And, even if it were, there's plenty of room for personality, style, and identity. So we agree, relationships are not a game. However, you might find that listening to advice about how to deal with people could make meeting people and having them like you be a much easier process. Is taking advice allowed in your model of "true" relationships, or would you say something snappy like... If you want to take advice all day, watch Dr. Phil! I included evolutionary psychology only as a means to explain overall dating behavior and motivation which the op had asked about. I don't think I implied whipping out some sort of book about personal evo-psych to target a single person. Finally, what makes you think that "game" (as your narrow mind thinks it knows) forbids deep emotional connections and "truth"? If you want to make assumptions all day, then you should head over to intern-- oh... nevermind.

jsz0 16y ago

If you don't mind me asking how old are you? I have a feeling what you're saying was the way things used to be but these days if you don't employ at least some of these techniques you might as well be invisible. It's what is expected. You won't have any deep romantic relationship because the girl will be far more interested in the PUA expert. You'll never get a chance. I don't think it's a great evolution of personal relationships myself but in my experience that's how it works these days. From what I can tell women are pretty happy with the arrangement too. They're definitely not victims.

cabalamat 16y ago

> 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. That might be true for you. It clearly isn't true for everyone. Clearly there are some people who would rather not have "a very real risk of emotional agony" and their wants are just as real, just as authentic, as yours.

Rod 16y ago

Of course relationships are a game: two players, several actions available to each player, and payoffs dependent on both players' actions. That is, by definition, a game. But it gets more interesting. Relationships are power games, as the player with the most power will dictate the tempo and pace of the battle. If you have more options and are less invested in the relationship than your significant other, then you have power over her. This power gap translates into luxuries like avoiding visiting her family (too often, at least), or not bothering about remembering her girlfriends' names. Moreover, if she's constantly terrified that you'll leave her if she gets fat, she'll exercize often and stay in shape, so that she can sexually arouse you for years to come, thus disincentivizing you from dumping her. You reciprocate by paying attention to her, by pretending to listen to her illogical / irrational arguments, and by abstaining from (too much) philandering. This balance of terror works great for both parties.

philwelch 16y ago
What you've described may be how your relationships usually go, but it sounds a lot like a living hell to me, and is nothing like my experience.
- Rod 16y ago
  Living hell for her, heaven for you!? Not really. My approach makes her obsession last longer. She never knows when she finally has you, so she keeps fighting to conquer your heart. Since this is a lifetime endeavor (or, perhaps, a death march), then the relationship never gets stale, and she never gets bored with you. Makes marriages last longer, is less traumatic for the kids, and (ultimately) is better for society. PS: next time your s.o. forces you to visit her boring family or some friends of her that you hate, you'll wish you had more power. Enjoy the whipping!!
  - philwelch 16y ago
    Your assumptions about my relationship are pretty deeply unfounded--I've never been forced to visit her family, nor do I hate her friends, nor have I ever been forced to visit them. There's no "whipping" involved--I'm every bit as free as I care to be. It's not a question of power at all--we don't seek power over each other so much as we work hard to keep our autonomy while sharing our lives together. It's difficult, but it's worthwhile as well. Building a strong relationship that respects the freedom of each partner is just as hard as keeping up one side of a power game, but it's more fulfilling in the end. Knowing that someone else truly and deeply loves you is a very comforting feeling, especially when you both know it's mutual. Trying to withhold that satisfaction and make your partner insecure just to keep her (literally) on the treadmill is an asshole thing to do, but ultimately it hurts you too. Winning your power-game style of relationship would be hell to me compared to the relationship I actually have. Look, I'll just address you point-by-point: Moreover, if she's constantly terrified that you'll leave her if she gets fat, she'll exercize often and stay in shape, so that she can sexually arouse you for years to come, thus disincentivizing you from dumping her when she hits the magic 30-year-old mark. Fat girls are underrated in my opinion, but there are plenty of strong women who can and do keep themselves in good shape for their own benefit. Of course, a self-starting woman like that is likely far too strong to put up with the kind of bullshit you're talking about. You reciprocate by paying attention to her, by pretending to listen to her illogical / irrational arguments I would rather not date stupid and irrational women. I prefer women whom I actually like paying attention to. Especially for a lifetime commitment! and by abstaining from (too much) philandering That's not a special favor; that's a basic part of being in a monogamous relationship. If monogamy is boring, have an open relationship and let the girl have some fun too. It might even spice up your sex life to have the odd threesome! The kind of relationship you advocate might be the best you can get--it may be genuinely difficult to have a genuinely good relationship like I'm talking about--but personally speaking, if the best relationship I can get is some adversarial power game, I'd rather go completely without. I have no fear of dying alone--I am comfortable with the notion. My personal suspicion: old married couples who treat their relationship like a power game are not happily married couples--they're like the couple in this story: http://www.violentacres.com/archives/497/happily-ever-after/ http://www.violentacres.com/archives/497/happily-ever-after/ Watching them was like watching a sick, evil little puppet show. He goaded her, she attacked him. He ignored her attacks, she escalated. Within minutes, dinner was ruined. They both looked supremely satisfied with this result. Before I turned to leave, the man reached out with a bony, desperate hand and clutched my arm. “Never, never get married,” he implored. I looked at his wife. Instead of looking offended, her eyes widened in tentative agreement. A slight nod of her head was like the period on the end of his sentence. That couple was trying to save my life."