Female Players

[Lovelybird]

Yeah that's nice and all. But I have done the waiting game before, the relationship turned out to be total **** because she revealed little to me until later on. On the other hand, my two longest relationships were with girls I had sex with on the 3rd or 4th date- that's a fact.

 

So I'm going off of experience for myself, not ideal, rosey pictures.

yes, like Awesome Username said women can form a deep bond after sex, if you both don't know each other well, and rush into sex, even if you don't match each other well, the girl may want to stay a bit longer, but that is more about keeping a codependent unhealthy relationship a bit longer, not good either.

 

If you are user or player, you would use this piece of information to get women, but if you are a decent guy, you would want to use this information to protect her. but remember what you sow, what you reap. if you sow care and love, you reap care and love. if you sow using and manipulation, you will get used and manipulated one day. this universe is a good class.

[dreamergrl]

I am single. However, being picky and slow as I am has in fact paid off. I have never had a bad breakup, have never been screwed over and I don't have crazy emotional baggage when it comes to men. I've never had a fast one pulled on me yet or cheated on, and if I was then the guy was smart enough to hide it perfectly! I still talk to my exes every now and then, and we still share advice.

 

You don't need to have sex to have crazy emotional baggage.. sorry.

 

Just because you share advice and talk to your exes doesn't mean crap. It could easily mean you were so flipping naive that you didn't and wont realize when one was pulled over on you.

 

I know I have been lucky. I'm not saying that if you HAVE had these things happen that you don't know what you're doing or even that you made mistakes, but my high standards have worked for me and I'm confident that someday when I decide to settle down it will be with a man I'm proud of.

 

You can have all the standards in the world... that doesn't absolute you from anything. Maybe you haven't been lucky, maybe you just do not know what was going on.

[BookerT]

So are you saying women are inferior to men, to be easier to be played? Seeing how as your thread was based on that there would be less "Did I get played" stories on LS if people would just wait.

 

Hate to break it to you, but I see just as many "Is she interested?" threads as I do "Did I get played by him" threads. Women can manipulate just like men can.

 

No, I'm saying it's easy for a man to get manipulated by a woman that doesn't love him, or use him for money, etc.

 

It's a lot harder to get manipulated to stay in a relationship with NO SEX.

[TheLoneSock]

Oh hey now, just because I prefer to snog early doesn't mean my standards are low. They have to go through extensive screening to even get to me. I am friends with girls before I am with them romantically for the most part. I just don't count knowing them previous to going romantic with them as part of the 'relationship'. The clock doesn't start until we start being intimate with each other, any time I knew them before that doesn't count.

 

This is not the ladder theory either (though I'm not entirely familiar with it).

 

For example, I will get a girl's phone number and flirt with her back and forth, and get to know her for a couple months before I even make a move (if I'm interested). Usually by that time she has been ready for sex for a while now. In essence it probably feels like we are dating to them, but to me they are a girl I'm just talking to. I have a thing for letting anticipation build up. I'm not the type to get with a girl I just met. Does that make any sense?

[TheLoneSock]

You don't need to have sex to have crazy emotional baggage.. sorry.

 

Just because you share advice and talk to your exes doesn't mean crap. It could easily mean you were so flipping naive that you didn't and wont realize when one was pulled over on you.

 

You can have all the standards in the world... that doesn't absolute you from anything. Maybe you haven't been lucky, maybe you just do not know what was going on.

 

This sounds a bit harsh, but I agree with it %100.

[dreamergrl]

yes, like Awesome Username said women can form a deep bond after sex, if you both don't know each other well, and rush into sex, even if you don't match each other well, the girl may want to stay a bit longer, but that is more about keeping a codependent unhealthy relationship a bit longer, not good either.

 

Hence why I said COMMUNICATION.

 

Besides, you can marry and not know the other person. How many stories are there about women who got screwed over by their husbands? Waiting or not, if a person wants to hide something, then will and can.

 

With more experience you can at least spot someone who is deceiving you. Without experience you can go years without knowing.

 

If you are user or player, you would use this piece of information to get women, but if you are a decent guy, you would want to use this information to protect her. but remember what you sow, what you reap. if you sow care and love, you reap care and love. if you sow using and manipulation, you will get used and manipulated one day. this universe is a good class.

 

I hear a religious debate coming on.

[Awesome Username]

Au, I'm kind of surprised at you saying something like that. So you think it's somehow easier for a Guy to break a woman's heart. That men are somehow less capable of having deep emotional bonds? What do you mean? I've had to hurt women who loved me deeply and I didn' think it was all that much fun, either.

 

I didn't mean that men breaking womens' hearts was any easier. What I meant was that I see some women take pride in men pining over them wheras I rarely hear men bragging about, "Haha, we had a FWB but she wanted more so I said no...she's upset now!" In honesty I think that some women who feel pride in breaking mens' hearts DO believe that men don't feel as bad when they hurt women. It's like getting back at the sex (because some guy did something bad to them) for not caring enough about them in the past.

 

Men and women are DIFFERENT. There are always exceptions but we are different folk. I know men hate hurting womens' feelings. Some men are so afraid to hurt their feelings that they wont commit to a relationship in the first place, thinking that he will just break her heart.

 

And if a man didn't care about a women's feelings, why would he do things like bring home the bacon and carry the groceries in or any other awesome guy stuff? Hell, I think that men do more for women then any of us realize. lol!

[dreamergrl]

This sounds a bit harsh, but I agree with it %100.

 

Sorry... I'm not a sugar coater. People think they have been lucky. I feel luckier knowing.

 

I didn't mean that men breaking womens' hearts was any easier. What I meant was that I see some women take pride in men pining over them wheras I rarely hear men bragging about, "Haha, we had a FWB but she wanted more so I said no...she's upset now!"

 

LMAO it goes both ways. It goes both ways. We may be wired differently, but the outcome can be no different.

 

In honesty I think that some women who feel pride in breaking mens' hearts DO believe that men don't feel as bad when they hurt women. It's like getting back at the sex (because some guy did something bad to them) for not caring enough about them in the past.

That is the thing though, both genders get back at the opposite sex for past hurt. They just go about it in a different manner.

 

Men and women are DIFFERENT. There are always exceptions but we are different folk. I know men hate hurting womens' feelings. Some men are so afraid to hurt their feelings that they wont commit to a relationship in the first place, thinking that he will just break her heart.

 

And if a man didn't care about a women's feelings, why would he do things like bring home the bacon and carry the groceries in or any other awesome guy stuff? Hell, I think that men do more for women then any of us realize. lol!

HA for real? Wow.... this is way out of date. The last, oh sorry - every relationship I've been in - it's been equal as far as bringing in the so called bacon. House hold chores. Carrying in this or that. That is such a sad reasoning.

[Awesome Username]

You don't need to have sex to have crazy emotional baggage.. sorry.

 

Just because you share advice and talk to your exes doesn't mean crap. It could easily mean you were so flipping naive that you didn't and wont realize when one was pulled over on you.

 

 

 

You can have all the standards in the world... that doesn't absolute you from anything. Maybe you haven't been lucky, maybe you just do not know what was going on.

 

 

That definitely could be the case, and I guess I was a little lofty in saying that my relationships were all fantastic. I mean, I'm pretty sure that every one of my exes was in love with somebody else while they were with me. However like I said, I am single now, so I didn't let it fly for too long. Maybe that's why we're still friends - you can't really blame someone for being in love with someone else, can you?

 

High standards wont absolute me from everything, but I'm certainly hopeful that they will absolute me from most things.

[TheLoneSock]

Like I said before it all comes from being able to detect bull****, trusting your gut, establishing red flags, asking the right questions, and as DG said- overall... COMMUNICATION.

 

It's hard to avoid being naive but still be a hopeless romantic, but there IS a middle ground. Experience is what shows us that middle road.

[threebyfate]

I was thinking about generational differences. In the past, men were raised not to express their emotions and sensitivity. They were also raised in a more self-centric fashion. Think about self, career, ambition and drive. Be bullet-proof.

 

With the baby boomer generation, women are also being raised the same way as men. More self-centric, more ambition driven and goals-oriented.

 

Men are being raised by the baby boomer generation, as more in touch with their feelings, less inclined towards believing that women are the fairer and weaker sex, thus less inclined towards common courtesy.

 

So now we have more clashing, since women aren't going to roll over and nurture men as much. With this in mind, maybe that's why there are more female players and also, women who can compartmentalize.

 

Maybe that's also why there's so much dating confusion these days. I don't ever recall any confusion about whether a man is asking for a date or asking you out as a friend. The signals were always blatantly obvious between friendship and romantic interest.

[BookerT]

I was thinking about generational differences. In the past, men were raised not to express their emotions and sensitivity. They were also raised in a more self-centric fashion. Think about self, career, ambition and drive. Be bullet-proof.

 

With the baby boomer generation, women are also being raised the same way as men. More self-centric, more ambition driven and goals-oriented.

 

Men are being raised by the baby boomer generation, as more in touch with their feelings, less inclined towards believing that women are the fairer and weaker sex, thus less inclined towards common courtesy.

 

So now we have more clashing, since women aren't going to roll over and nurture men as much. With this in mind, maybe that's why there are more female players and also, women who can compartmentalize.

 

Maybe that's also why there's so much dating confusion these days. I don't ever recall any confusion about whether a man is asking for a date or asking you out as a friend. The signals were always blatantly obvious between friendship and romantic interest.

 

Well your last paragraph is linked to my last thread. Maybe I'm in an older generation but things have broken down in the dating scene these days in my opinion.

 

People used to date or not date. There was less of this "seeing each other" or grey area crap that gets people's hopes up then crushed.

[TheLoneSock]

I was thinking about generational differences. In the past, men were raised not to express their emotions and sensitivity. They were also raised in a more self-centric fashion. Think about self, career, ambition and drive. Be bullet-proof.

 

With the baby boomer generation, women are also being raised the same way as men. More self-centric, more ambition driven and goals-oriented.

 

Men are being raised by the baby boomer generation, as more in touch with their feelings, less inclined towards believing that women are the fairer and weaker sex, thus less inclined towards common courtesy.

 

So now we have more clashing, since women aren't going to roll over and nurture men as much. With this in mind, maybe that's why there are more female players and also, women who can compartmentalize.

 

Maybe that's also why there's so much dating confusion these days. I don't ever recall any confusion about whether a man is asking for a date or asking you out as a friend. The signals were always blatantly obvious between friendship and romantic interest.

 

Men are different now because the baby boomers brought with them feminism, and ultra liberal school teachings. Schools filled with female teachers and a father that was absent most of the time, working his ass off away from home led to boys being raised predominantly by women. Gone were the days where a boy would spend all day working on the farm next to dad. Men were essentially feminized.

 

You make very good points, I'm just adding to them. You may or may not agree but in reality, that is the jist of what happened. It was a complete shift in the American way of life and it started with children born in the 40's and 50's.

[boldjack]

Also, I kind of resent the remark that women can get sex anytime but men can't. I may be older (late middle -age) but I will have you know that I COULD get sex anytime or anyplace I want I'm not chopped liver, ya know:mad:!:laugh:

[threebyfate]

Well your last paragraph is linked to my last thread. Maybe I'm in an older generation but things have broken down in the dating scene these days in my opinion.

 

People used to date or not date. There was less of this "seeing each other" or grey area crap that gets people's hopes up then crushed.

If you're in your mid-thirties, then yes, you're in the same generation as I am.

 

Men are different now because the baby boomers brought with them feminism, and ultra liberal school teachings. Schools filled with female teachers and a father that was absent most of the time, working his ass off away from home led to boys being raised predominantly by women. Gone were the days where a boy would spend all day working on the farm next to dad. Men were essentially feminized.

 

You make very good points, I'm just adding to them. You may or may not agree but in reality, that is the jist of what happened. It was a complete shift in the American way of life and it started with children born in the 40's and 50's.

I have to inject something, in that working on the farm next to Dad, was never a consideration in urban life and urban life has always had the vast majority of the North American population. With this in mind, women were raising children long before the '40s and the '50s.

 

I do agree that Feminism has had an impact on both genders. For women, it's been worthwhile, in general. For men, the more militant Radical Feminists, haven't been good for them. For that matter, no offense to men or women who believe otherwise, but the focus on men being more sensitive, has IMO, been detrimental to men.

 

And this is coming from a recent convertee to Feminism but one who's primarily a third-wave Feminist and partially a Liberal Feminist.

 

http://feminism.suite101.com/article.cfm/types_of_feminism

 

I look at my fiance who's 36. He's like me, in that he sits on the leading edge of the baby boomer generation. He's very masculine but also fairly open-minded, in that he doesn't care if I want to be a SAHM but respects that I enjoy my career. I wouldn't call him a sensitive new age male by a long shot. There are things that he says that would make more sensitive women cry, in that he can be very direct. I prefer his bluntness, since it's never said with malice in mind. I also don't have to watch what I'm saying to him, since not much bothers him. He'll either agree or disagree, which is fine.

 

In many ways, I'm an example of the leading edge of the baby boomer generation woman. Less sensitive and emotional. And yet, I still hold to old-fashioned values about sex and bonding.

 

Maybe that's why I could never be a female player, albeit have played blatant male players in the past.

Edited October 29, 2009 by threebyfate

[TheLoneSock]

I have to inject something, in that working on the farm next to Dad, was never a consideration in urban life and urban life has always had the vast majority of the North American population. With this in mind, women were raising children long before the '40s and the '50s.

 

I'm going to disagree with this statement. I think that America didn't see an overall transition from an agrarian to an industrial (manufacturing, assembly lines, unions) economy until after WW2. This was accompanied by the movement of families from rural areas to more urban areas. It coupled with the absence of fathers from the home (working their 9-5 jobs), and an increase in divorce which brought about many single parent homes headed by women. I do agree that women were raising children long before the 40's and 50's, but not in as nearly a significant way. It was the combination of many things that led to the creation of the ultra sensitive man.

[threebyfate]

I'm going to disagree with this statement. I think that America didn't see an overall transition from an agrarian to an industrial (manufacturing, assembly lines, unions) economy until after WW2. This was accompanied by the movement of families from rural areas to more urban areas. It coupled with the absence of fathers from the home (working their 9-5 jobs), and an increase in divorce which brought about many single parent homes headed by women. I do agree that women were raising children long before the 40's and 50's, but not in as nearly a significant way. It was the combination of many things that led to the creation of the ultra sensitive man.

Paraphrased from the attached link, by 1916, almost 50% of the population moved to urban areas.

 

http://www.theusaonline.com/history/industrilazation.htm

[TheLoneSock]

Paraphrased from the attached link, by 1916, almost 50% of the population moved to urban areas.

 

http://www.theusaonline.com/history/industrilazation.htm

 

Population movement is significant, but that is still only %50. Also, most of the child births were still most likely happening in the more rural areas. It was extremely common for farming families to be large, having upwards of 5-10 children. Families that lived in cities could simply not sustain that many children. So if you have %50 of families having many children, and the other %50 having a few children, it's safe to say that most children were STILL being born into rural areas.

 

Also, America has been a nation for around 250 years. So even though we began seeing a transition from an agrarian to industrial economy around 100 years ago, that is not significant when compared to the rest of the US's history. Barely a third of our time here.

Edited October 29, 2009 by TheLoneSock
typo

[threebyfate]

Population movement is significant, but that is still only %50. Also, most of the child births were still most likely happening in the more rural areas. It was extremely common for farming families to be large, having upwards of 5-10 children. Families that lived in cities could simply not sustain that many children. So if you have %50 of families having many children, and the other %50 having a few children, it's safe to say that most children were STILL being born into rural areas.

Do you have anything to back this up about rural families being larger than urban families, back in the early 1900's? From what I recall about history, large families were prevalent everywhere.

 

Also, America has been a nation for around 250 years. So even though we began seeing a transition from an agrarian to industrial economy around 100 years ago, that is not significant when compared to the rest of the US's history. Barely a third of our time here.

Men weren't "feminized" from the 1920s to around the '60's. Wasn't the phrase "new age sensitive guy" coined around the '80s?

 

Anyways, this thread is about female players. You and I have gotten a little off-topic, albeit on an interesting sidebar.

 

Feminism has brought about some changes to women. Truth be told, I think women gain something from being less sensitive.

 

On other otherhand, when they evolve to the point of no sensitivity, totally self-centric, such as with a female player, it's not good at all.

[gypsy_nicky]

So there is often threads asking "Did HE play me?" Asking if he was just out for sex.

 

I think females (not all) have their own version of this. Girls claiming to wait for sex, not because they want to better their relationship, but they want to force a commitment on a guy, by withholding sex, claiming when they get a commitment, they will have sex.

 

Now, before I get creamed by a lot of females on here... I'm not saying that all girls wanting to wait are playing this game. However, I know this game does get played. I've seen it IRL. I've seen it on this board.

 

SOME guys will claim to offer a commitment to get sex, then bail on the commitment. SOME girls will claim to give sex for a commitment, but bail on the sex.

 

Lets face it. As time goes by, it's not just guys who play games with sex. It goes both ways.

 

I find this statement dubious. This is not a playerette.

 

Girls withhold sex because of the double standard that still exists today that if you put out too early your 'easy' and the what not's. It is also emotionally painful to have sex with someone too early when you realize that their not that into you and your very much into them hence you felt used.

 

If your asking about major differences in being led on, men place it on emotional-giving off signs etc, women-mostly sexual, he led me on.

 

If your talking about real playerette's, these species do no specific thing (i.e withholding sex) but are fully aware of their intentions of stringing several men along.

 

Again this is very general because it could be she may just be looking at options or she could be a 'natural' flirt with every man that she met.

 

I find that if the woman is reasonably attractive (6-7) and is flirty, many men will start to chase her and eventually their opinions of her will change because they start to see inconsistent behavior (flirting but not wanting anything further).

[The Collector]

Women play games of course, but does with-holding sex make them a 'player'? In some ways they are definitely playing certain games to get what they want, commitment (but there are the non-playing girls who genuinely want to take things slower).

 

The women who resemble male players to me, as I have recently mentioned are the Female Relationship Players who flit from one relationship they weren't interested in enough to try and save, to another - because the game ended when they got what they wanted, the guy deep in love.

 

I don't think there are many women like this, but it does account for one reason that 7/10 divorces are initiated by women, and possibly a higher percentages of less serious relationships are ended by the woman.

 

In some ways, it's a simple as the men who are only interested in answering the question of can I bed that girl and will do and say whatever it takes to do it. The Female Relationship Player thinks (maybe subconciously) 'I wonder if I can make that guy fall in love with me?' The darwinian sense of such a game is that a woman well practised in being able to make a man offer his good-provider skills will be at an advantage, like the Player is at an advantage when it comes to getting the most choice of genetic replication.

 

A lesser motive is often plain old misandry, like Awesome Username (I think) said, 'to boast to her friends about how into him the latest idiot is'

 

If more and more women are putting children off to later in life (and a recent report shows a huge rise in Downs Syndrome babies being born because of this - I wonder how women would be reacting if nature had built it so that men we were choosing babies later in life and because of that the women were getting retarded offspring). Anyway, as women are choosing to get pregnant later in life, it stands to reason they are also planning to settle down later in life and are often going to enjoy lots of perhaps unsuitable suitors before that.

 

Some women will use this extra time to try and tame a bad boy, or just enjoy the drama and maybe great sex of dating such types. But if the taming succeeds, so may the fun, and in the cold light of day the bad-boys good providerness might not be his strong point, and anyway she's not settling down right now because her career is in a really tricky place, so it's bye-bye poor reformed bad-boy.

 

Next to fresh bad boy or maybe a good provider type (if she got dumped and hurt for some reason, the nice guy has his best shot). This nice guy may well think he's hit the jackpot, as he has been getting used to the idea that nice guys finish last. He will listen to how terrible the bad boy ex was, and double his efforts to please. Then just as he's thinking of going down on one knee, the female relationship player, knowing she has about a decade before she needs to give up her fetishised 'independence' to have those babies she, er, really wants, is suddenly not in love and anymore and needs a break. Bye nice guy, don't hang yourself!

 

And so on. In many ways these players are worse than male players, at least the ones only after some sex - basically the more you manipulate someone into being in love with you, while having one mental foot out of the door, the scummier you are probably.

 

But it's possibly what all those best at passing on their genes do, so I guess we could blame Mother Nature. Those with the most choice of partners have the most and best offspring.

[betamanlet]

So there is often threads asking "Did HE play me?" Asking if he was just out for sex.

 

I think females (not all) have their own version of this. Girls claiming to wait for sex, not because they want to better their relationship, but they want to force a commitment on a guy, by withholding sex, claiming when they get a commitment, they will have sex.

 

Now, before I get creamed by a lot of females on here... I'm not saying that all girls wanting to wait are playing this game. However, I know this game does get played. I've seen it IRL. I've seen it on this board.

 

SOME guys will claim to offer a commitment to get sex, then bail on the commitment. SOME girls will claim to give sex for a commitment, but bail on the sex.

 

Lets face it. As time goes by, it's not just guys who play games with sex. It goes both ways.

 

 

There's no shortage of women out there that want to have sex with lots of guys, just to see if they like her, then when they find out he does, they move on. They are pretty much exactly like male players. There are tons of commitmentphobic women, but it seems only men get accused of being that.

[betamanlet]

Withholding sex doesn't make one a player, it makes one a manipulator. That's not better, nor worse than being a player. But there are plenty of actual female players out there. Their strategy looks a little different, it's more like shopping around for a new boyfriend while they already have one.. They try out a bunch of new guys, and if they like one better, they go to him, leave the old one, and completely ignore the other guys (like the guy who doesn't call her back after having sex).

 

I've experienced this at work. Some new chick arrives, tells everyone but me she has a boyfriend, we hook up one night, then she tells me she has a boyfriend, then a couple of guys on the side, and then she's convinced she's in love with one of the other guys on the side, so it has to stop, meanwhile she's lying to everyone involved. She actually got married recently. That will certainly add to the divorce statistics.

[deux ex machina]

All of us have the inborn instinct to strive, it's in our DNA.

 

How this drive manifests itself is another thing altogether - playing games like this is could be one way. It seems likely to me that some people are more driven than others, and don't have any other outlet, or they are just satisfied with that one.

 

Can be memorable, if not exciting, with the right person - but you only get a good run one or twice really I would think...because it just seems boring and pointless after awhile.

 

After your curiousity about games is satisfied, what else is there to know about it?

 

Gee, I can take a man's psyche and bend it like a pretzel! Go me!

[jw90063]

 

 

 

I hear a religious debate coming on.

 

 

I think the OP wanted a debate by the sound of this thread.