My experience with game

[inthesomeday]

Ever been at a job interview, or discussed a salary raise? Bartered?

Okay you got me, transactions are transactions. This is useless semantics, you knew what I meant. Lemme rephrase: any personal interaction with another person should never be turned mentally into a game because that’s creepy and messes up your social life.

Or litererally played a game with another person, like werwolfs or mafia?

Again, yep, games are games. Here’s how you should be playing a game: know the rules, play your best, try to have fun. Here’s how you should not be playing a game: analyzing the people around you’s microexpressions, carefully trying to control the flow of information, using manipulative strategies to psychologically ruin your opponents, treating the actual people you’re playing against as prey for you, the virile hunter, to conquer. That would be creepy.

Notice the latter suggestions all have to do with the interpersonal interactions!

A lot in human interactions is a sort of transaction. Sometimes, this is literal, as above. Often, it's more figuratively. You exchange experiences, which is a transaction. You exchange knowledge, which is a transaction. You joke with each other, and you are exchanging feelings. And sometimes you get into a joke spiral, and everyone is making a better one...which is in some way also a game.
This is very meta, but the very nature of human interactions are exchanges, in some kind of physical or emotional way.

You have demonstrated exactly the kind of psychology that’s creepy about interacting with other people. Semantics of what constitutes a “transaction” aside, if you’re trying to compete against your conversational partners to try and gain an advantage, or trying to overwhelm and dominate other people in a joke spiral, you are being creepy. Stop.

If you think it's not a transaction: Think about a conversation, where one partner is completely silent. You will get bored of this, because there is no transaction back to you.

More semantics. I feel like if I had replaced the word “transaction” with “competitive deal” or something then 99% of your rebuttal would disappear.

 

[The_J]

These are not remotely the same as what Mary is talking about.

That wasn't Mary, but inthesomeday, sorry, I mixed the order of the quotes a bit, made more sense in that order.
And yes, absolutely true. This was a very obvious point against the too broad generalization.
More applicable points, which still also act against this generaliaztion, are the ones directly afterwards.

 

[The_J]

Here’s how you should not be playing a game: analyzing the people around you’s microexpressions, carefully trying to control the flow of information

So is overdoing it in the wrong direction.
I am saying that you should pay attention to your surrounding, and should be aware what people are saying and how they are feeling.
If my conversation partners is happy, sad, angry, I need to take note of this, and I need to react in the appropriate way (by joking, consoling them, or calming them down... all natural). Yes, sure. I need to see how the react, and what they say. This is a normal human interaction.
Everthing else would make me... autistic, I guess?
And there are also clearly people who are better at this, and people who are worse. And there's nothing wrong to trying to improve myself, to become better in interacting with my friends and peers.

using manipulative strategies to psychologically ruin your opponents, treating the actual people you’re playing against as prey for you, the virile hunter, to conquer.[...]you’re trying to compete against your conversational partners to try and gain an advantage, or trying to overwhelm and dominate other people in a joke spiral, you are being creepy. [...]I had replaced the word “transaction” with “competitive deal” or something then 99% of your rebuttal would disappear.

You see negativity where there is none.
This is, again, about making interactions better. About having a good time. It's not ruining people. I mean... why would I want to have a bad time. Nobody is preying on someone. It's not necessary, because if the conversation is good enough, it'll be a natural flow. I'm also only competing in a way to make it better, by even giving better value, information, feelings. Nobody is trying to gain an advantage there.
I don't know where you are seeing these points.

 

[red_elk]

A creep who is successful with women is IMO an oxymoron
Flirting can be creepy in case if other person doesn't accept it. Learning to read the feedback and understand which behavior is appropriate with this person and at this moment is part of a "game". It's not necessary about manipulation. Understanding psychology and behavior of the opposite gender is useful skill, but as many other skills it can be used not only to take advantage of people, but also for mutual benefit.

 

[Lexicus]

A creep who is successful with women is IMO an oxymoron

Didn't even need any words to rebut this. I'm just adding these words to make this post compliant with the rules. Indeed arguably the whole concept of "success with women" where "success" is defined as "had sex with them" is creepy by definition.

 

[inthesomeday]

Have you missed the context of the thread? I was bringing in outside knowledge of the common tactics employed by pick-up artists. This is what “the game” is in this thread.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

@Lexicus And Netflix is doing all it can to remind everyone how hot Ted Bundy was at the moment as well.

 

[inthesomeday]

My previous comment was replying to @The_J

 

[Lexicus]

@Lexicus And Netflix is doing all it can to remind everyone how hot Ted Bundy was at the moment as well.

Yeah, I considered mentioning him but I'm not sure that he was really "successful" with women in the sense we're talking about here. He was "successful" at pretending to be injured so they'd go back with him to his car, certainly...

Whereas Manson was undoubtedly "successful with women" in the way that term is meant in this thread. And Manson is also undoubtedly incredibly creepy.

 

[red_elk]

Didn't even need any words to rebut this. I'm just adding these words to make this post compliant with the rules. Indeed arguably the whole concept of "success with women" where "success" is defined as "had sex with them" is creepy by definition.

I don't consider sexual predators as people successful with women. Strange that you seem to do.

Edit: By successful I mean people who are able to build stable relationship, where both partners are happy.

 

[The_J]

Didn't even need any words to rebut this. I'm just adding these words to make this post compliant with the rules. Indeed arguably the whole concept of "success with women" where "success" is defined as "had sex with them" is creepy by definition.

Lying about emergency situations is not the same thing. Nobody is proposing this.
He's also succesful at killing women, so...um...not comparable.

Have you missed the context of the thread? I was bringing in outside knowledge of the common tactics employed by pick-up artists. This is what “the game” is in this thread.

No, I did not miss it.
Well, partially, because I've read and listen to lots of stuff about game, and most of what you mention does not help.
How does ruining my interaction partner help me with being succesful with him/her?
How is trying to gain advantage of him/her help with being succesful?
Unless you call "We had both a great evening full of nice conversations and afterwards we both had great sex togehter (possibly)" as "taking advantage".
Trying to dominate someone also does not help with being succesful, because this is something mutual, and dominating is not.

The things you mention are the things which are used by some PUAs, but that's the bad flock. Nobody here suggests to do like that, and these methods are neither good, nor sustainable, also not for one's personality.
The things I mention are the ones proposed by the more positive people, which I'd advice to watch a few vids of (like the RSD channels on youtube; als overy good general self improvement videos there)

 

[Synobun]

I'm struggling to see the reason behind the push-back on this being a gross sentiment towards women. The OP is fairly clear on objectifying women and considering them nothing more than conquests.

He said he fell in love with a woman and that she left him, but he specifically goes out of his way to point out that the woman's new partner is a "smoking hot bisexual girl".

He refers to trying to get hookups as "not needing to hit up three clubs a week" because, and I quote, he doesn't need a "weekly fresh supply" of women.

He openly admits that he manipulates for self-gain, and admits guilt over making a woman fall in love with him when he had no sexual interest in her and saw her only as a tool for his so-called education. Material that he is, by the way, saying that he will make his teenage son read when the day comes.

Then he admits that he's helping the "smoking hot bisexual girl" cheat on his ex-girlfriend. He actively hunted and manipulated women and then used his newfound "knowledge" to seduce a woman he only recognizes as her sexual value and as a means to hurt his ex-girlfriend. He says that his former love "messed up" when she broke up with him because he went out of his way to destroy her relationship.

He remedies the guilt by saying he doesn't care about it, he's "above" it, yet continues and advocates teaching it to children.

He concludes this regaling tale by saying he's figured out the truth behind women. He says he now understands women well. Strange that the "truth" of women happens to paint them as mere targets to hit and sexually conquer, that the way to deal with a woman breaking up with you is to make sure she's bisexual so you can seduce her new partner and hurt her.

And you are actually defending this. Wild.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Yeah, I considered mentioning him but I'm not sure that he was really "successful" with women in the sense we're talking about here. He was "successful" at pretending to be injured so they'd go back with him to his car, certainly...

Whereas Manson was undoubtedly "successful with women" in the way that term is meant in this thread. And Manson is also undoubtedly incredibly creepy.

I don't know the details of his murders and personal relationships but he was almost a pop culture figure at the time and a sex symbol at that.

 

[The_J]

He said he fell in love with a woman and that she left him, but he specifically goes out of his way to point out that the woman's new partner is a "smoking hot bisexual girl".

This describes the situation...I don't see a problem there.

He refers to trying to get hookups as "not needing to hit up three clubs a week" because, and I quote, he doesn't need a "weekly fresh supply" of women.

No, this reads different. He says he doesn't need to go to the club 3 times per week, to get drunk and to maybe get lucky, but rather that he is so skilled now, that he can approach women in other settings, and be succesful there. No issue there.
EDIT: No, both interpretations are wrong.
He says that pickup in genral advocates to go out a lot, so that you get in contact with many women. He just says he does NOT need that.
The quote is
"And I certainly don't need to hit three clubs a week to get weekly fresh supply."

He openly admits that he manipulates for self-gain, and admits guilt over making a woman fall in love with him when he had no sexual interest in her and saw her only as a tool for his so-called education.

Which is described as accidental and being nasty. **** happens. It was not intentional, and it was not wanted. Why does this make him bad?

The quote is:
"And I also learned to be responsible. Nasty thing to accidentally make a girl fall in love with you whom you are not even sexually interested in."

Then he admits that he's helping the "smoking hot bisexual girl" cheat on his ex-girlfriend. He actively hunted and manipulated women and then used his newfound "knowledge" to seduce a woman he only recognizes as her sexual value and as a means to hurt his ex-girlfriend. He says that his former love "messed up" when she broke up with him because he went out of his way to destroy her relationship.

I think the word "affair" can be interpreted in 2 ways. For me the description reads that the other girl (not his ex, the other one) voluntarily got into a not-really-relationsip (like, nothing official) with him, after the 2 girls broke up.
This might need clarification though.
So I don't see bad intentions here, also he doesn't say anywhere that he intentionally aimed at this girl to hurt his ex.
Just that it happened (at least my interpretation)
And for me, he doesn't say that his former ex messed up, because he messed now with her. For me he says that his former ex realizes that she messed up, because apparently he is a great guy (he must be, he can get lots of women), and she should not have dumped him. (edit2: So he doesn't say he's happy about the revenge, not at all. He says that she regrets losing him for losing him as a great person)
There are 2 interpretations to all of this.
EDIT: It is also not said anythere that this is only for sex.

EDIT3: Might really need soome more details here.

 

[Lexicus]

I don't consider sexual predators as people successful with women.

This is the exact point that @MaryKB, @Valka D'Ur and others are making. You are already labeling predatory behavior as "successful with women."

I don't know the details of his murders and personal relationships but he was almost a pop culture figure at the time and a sex symbol at that.

By coincidence I recently read his bio on wikipedia (I do this with serial killers from time to time, yeah I'm weird but I'm given to understand I'm not the only one) so I actually do know many of the details. Afaik he was not some kind of Casanova who ran around easily seducing people. Investigators actually hypothesized that a failed relationship with his (college? maybe high school? can't remember exactly) sweetheart caused him to go down the serial killing path. It wasn't until after he had been caught, when he had no opportunity to seduce anyone, that his face was everywhere and he became a sex symbol.

For me the description reads that the other girls voluntarily got into a not-really-relationsip (like, nothing official) with him, after the 2 girls broke up.

That was also how I interpreted it. *shrugs* I also believe that OP's first language is not English if that makes any difference.

 

[red_elk]

You are already labeling predatory behavior as "successful with women."

I don't.
That's the point The_J and I are making. Having good social skills and being attractive to women is not the same as being predator.

 

[Phrossack]

That's what this whole thing is for!

Ultimately you're doing straight women a service by putting yourself into the dating pool. More men than women are opting out. If a few women are creeped out by a misunderstanding, they'll be fine. More fine than someone avoiding trying, and also more fine than women having to compete for fewer and fewer, and increasingly entitled in response, men.

Re: the misunderstanding: think about it. Your history and intentions are non-abusive, consensual, and wanting good things and respect for others.

The bolded is a thought that has literally never occurred to me until now. I'm not sure what to make of it. What makes you say more men than women are dropping out? I haven't heard of that. If anything, my assumption is that (straight) men seem to need women more than the reverse, so if some quit, the rest will happily pick up the slack.

I'm not so sure I'd be doing women a favor. It's possible I could put myself out there, get into a relationship or two that end in disaster, and have a net negative effect on happiness.

And thanks, I try--but I don't necessarily know others know this or agree on it, so I'm guarded.

I read Neil Strauss' book many years ago. I found it highly interesting, though it didn't help me practically at all. I also read Mark Manson's Models after it was recommended by a friend, which was less interesting but probably more practically useful because of the way it talks about relationship dynamics. Interestingly the main thesis of that book was in essence what Tim is saying: being hyper-honest to yourself and about yourself is the best 'strategy' if you want a real relationship, because sooner or later the mask is going to slip off.

I used to be like this. I fooled myself into thinking it was because I was too good to engage in the unethical behaviors I fooled myself into thinking were necessary to have any success in dating or hooking up.

I'll warn you that it wasn't sustainable for me.

'Game' in the sense that Hygro is talking about dovetails with this. For example becoming more confident allowed me to see rejection as the inevitable consequence of the fact that women are people, rather than as something that reflected personally on me, or something to overcome.

I'm extremely, probably overly, honest with and about myself. I know exactly what I'm looking for and what I have to offer. This is a problem, because I'm very selective and don't think I have much to offer, not against the standards I usually see.

I do see a lot of "social gaming" as exploitive or dishonest. For example, one is expected to show some interest in what others have to say. If someone else talks to me about, say, sports, or The Office, or her day in music class, I struggle to feign interest and usually try to find a way to gracefully change the topic or escape the conversation. I just can't trick them into thinking I care. Nor can I feign confidence, or feign friendliness, or do all these other acts of pretending we're expected to do.

It's very hard to interpret rejection in a non-personal way, especially since I only ever try to talk to women by trying to discuss common interests jn a friendly way. If they don't like that, it isn't that they don't like the topic, but that they don't care for me specifically. How else am I to take that?

Someone like @Phrossack doesn't need to flirt, he's a good and interesting person, and he just needs to be himself.

Thanks, but being myself has been a failed strategy for years now. Women just generally aren't into that. I'd have to be someone else entirely, but I refuse to do that since I figure no façade can last and it would be disappointing for both of us. The best move is sometimes not to play.

 

[inthesomeday]

(he must be, he can get lots of women)

This type of language is indicative of the psychology we’re calling creepy.

I don't.
That's the point The_J and I are making. Having good social skills and being attractive to women is not the same as being predator.

Treating relationships and interactions as games are actually quite poor social skills.

 

[MaryKB]

You don't see how him talking about women solely in terms of physical attractiveness is demeaning? Are you even aware at all about sexual objectification of women?

It would be very sexist to generalize that far. Someone can talk extensively about their own personality, because that is something a person hopefully knows the most. Saying now something about everyone's else personality would be a generalization, and in this case a sexist one. You need to approach every person one by one, because everyone is uniquze, and talking about that would be quite a wall of text, and also not be very sensisble, since this might be very private.

I'm not talking about him generalizing women, I'm referring to him not talking at all about looking to connect with women who have interesting personalities, or about him trying to get to know women better for who they are. He only talks about how he's trying to have sex with as many attractive women as he can. He doesn't view women as people, but just physical objects in a game he's playing. I feel like you're totally missing the whole point here?

And you can totally be "successful" and creepy, it depends on what you're trying to do, right? If you're trying to manipulate women and take advantage of them for your sexual purposes, and if you're really good at doing that, you're totally a creep. And doing so is exactly what being a sexual predator is .. what do you think makes someone a sexual predator? Being awkward isn't creepy, being manipulative is creepy.

And I feel very sad for you if you feel everything in life's a transaction. So you only do something because you expect something in return? So you don't value kindness just for the sake of kindness? I can tell you I do many things where I'm not expecting any kind of payment or reward, that's not at all how you live life. Romantic relationships are about giving and exploring together, how you seem to be comparing that to some sort of business transaction I find archaic and disturbing.

I'm struggling to see the reason behind the push-back on this being a gross sentiment towards women. The OP is fairly clear on objectifying women and considering them nothing more than conquests.

And you are actually defending this. Wild.

I feel it's really disturbing how you'll see men so eager to defend another man, even when he's really creepy and predatory, and you'll often see guys doing this especially when a man is being challenged by a woman (like you can look at what happened with Brett Kavanaugh)

This describes the situation...I don't see a problem there.

If you're having difficulties seeing what the problem is, you might want to listen more and talk down to people less? You're defending creepy predatory behavior, and you're dismissing people who are trying to help you understand.

I'm very sorry, I don't mean to be so harsh, but I found your reply to me to be very upsetting. I feel it's bad enough to have creepy predatory guys out there, and what makes it worse is when you also have other men who completely dismiss women's feelings and points of view and actively defend his behavior.

 

[Farm Boy]

Strange world. Relationships seem to be what makes life worth living, and partnerships inclusive of sexual attraction and desire seem to be pretty reasonable components of that to include in life. But relationships are shallow before they are deep. They have to be, it's where they start. Sexual attraction starts as a shallow feature, not a deep one. Expecting full fledged individually tailored to every person on the planet respect to be a first date, or even a pre-first date thing is puritanical in the extreme. Sexual attraction, shallow as it is, vapid as it is, is not a vice. What we do with it can be a vice. Being excited about sharing your interaction with somebody you find "smoking hot" is not demeaning. Trying to learn how to strike up conversations that go somewhere is not demeaning. Being honest about looking for a romantic relationship and not a platonic one, if that's what is desired, is not demeaning. Having affairs with people probably is. Chewing through them as toys probably is. Sex as vengence definitely is. But we're confounded by living in a world where a babe thread is considered inappropriate. And that is also nothing short of pathological. Honest and open sexual interest and desire is not a disease. Treating it as such will not make it go away, but it will help cause it to become more diseased.