9Lives Posted April 20, 2011 Posted April 20, 2011 [QUOTE=J200;3355551]uh women ARE required to have game, especially when there is 5 good looking women competing for the same guy and he has at least 10 other girls he can sleep with. Looks are not enough if you live somewhere with lots of beautiful women like SoCal, even you are slim and sexy and hot you need GAME because the women who are hot and manipulative and SLY will get the guy while the other HOT girl (equally hot) but not as outspoken, not as confident and not as manipulative will lose to the girl with GAME. YUP WOMEN NEED GAME AND NEED TO RECOGNIZE GAME. MOST WOMEN HATE TO EVEN ACCEPT THAT GAME EXIST. I TOLD MY DAUGHTER THE MINUTE A MAN OPENS HIS MOUTH...GAME ON! IT DOESNT MEAN HE WANTS TO HURT THE WOMAN BUT THAT IS YET TO BE DETERMINED. WALKING AROUND BLIND TO THE GAME IS THE GAME PLAYERS PARADISE. PLAYER WINS!! I SEEN THIS OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN. I ALSO HAVE BEEN A VICTUM TO IT CAUSE I DIDNT BELIEVE IN KNOWING GAME OR HAVING GAME...THINGS HAVE CHANGED...AND I LOVE IT.
kiss_andmakeup Posted April 20, 2011 Posted April 20, 2011 (edited) The only "game" a woman (who is reasonably attractive or who dates within her respective "league") ever needs is to not appear as a desperate nut job. Leaving endless strings of needy texts and voicemails, professing undying love on the first date, and browsing engagement rings one week in would qualify as desperate nut job behaviour. So I would argue that a woman need not have game, she need simply to be sane. Unless for some reason she wants to attract a "game player," but in that case I'd wonder why she'd even be interested. There are people out there who don't fill their lives with constant drama and deception; seek them out. Edited April 20, 2011 by kiss_andmakeup
threebyfate Posted April 20, 2011 Posted April 20, 2011 What "game" are y'all talking about? Solitaire or Clue? I believe they're either talking about Monopoly or Risk!
J200 Posted April 20, 2011 Posted April 20, 2011 The only "game" a woman (who is reasonably attractive or who dates within her respective "league") ever needs is to not appear as a desperate nut job. Leaving endless strings of needy texts and voicemails, professing undying love on the first date, and browsing engagement rings one week in would qualify as desperate nut job behaviour. So I would argue that a woman need not have game, she need simply to be sane. Unless for some reason she wants to attract a "game player," but in that case I'd wonder why she'd even be interested. There are people out there who don't fill their lives with constant drama and deception; seek them out. Not true. The woman I know is attractive, probably like a 9-10; probably has more than 10 guys who want her. However the guy she wanted had 10 girls wanting him. In order for her to "win" him from the rest of women she had put on her major A game. A plus game. Not stalking or leaving 10,000 voice mails but serious emotional manipulation, hooked him amazing sex, appealed to his weakness. Months of planning and plotting. The guy wasn't out of her league. They are both considered one of the beautiful people.
kiss_andmakeup Posted April 20, 2011 Posted April 20, 2011 Not true. The woman I know is attractive, probably like a 9-10; probably has more than 10 guys who want her. However the guy she wanted had 10 girls wanting him. In order for her to "win" him from the rest of women she had put on her major A game. A plus game. Not stalking or leaving 10,000 voice mails but serious emotional manipulation, hooked him amazing sex, appealed to his weakness. Months of planning and plotting. The guy wasn't out of her league. They are both considered one of the beautiful people. You just proved the very last point I made in my post. I would never want to be with anyone, or be someone, who considers finding/selecting a mate to be akin to "winning" a "game." The fact that you included "serious emotional manipulation" in your description of her "game" further proves my point. That is an unhealthy way to begin a relationship and something I personally would want no part in.
threebyfate Posted April 20, 2011 Posted April 20, 2011 People aren't prizes to win or lose. If you really think about it, you'd realize how objectifying that is for either gender.
9Lives Posted April 20, 2011 Posted April 20, 2011 You just proved the very last point I made in my post. I would never want to be with anyone, or be someone, who considers finding/selecting a mate to be akin to "winning" a "game." The fact that you included "serious emotional manipulation" in your description of her "game" further proves my point. That is an unhealthy way to begin a relationship and something I personally would want no part in. alot of times, you are not even aware that game is being play. the game is to be experienced not revealed. Most of the time, its not black and white.
kiss_andmakeup Posted April 20, 2011 Posted April 20, 2011 alot of times, you are not even aware that game is being play. the game is to be experienced not revealed. Most of the time, its not black and white. I was replying to J200's post and her candid reference to "emotional manipulation." In her example, it was exceedingly clear that a game was being played. She even used the terms "scheming" and "plotting."
9Lives Posted April 20, 2011 Posted April 20, 2011 I was replying to J200's post and her candid reference to "emotional manipulation." In her example, it was exceedingly clear that a game was being played. She even used the terms "scheming" and "plotting." I know that what you was talking about. women use the emotional thing on men but they dont know it is being played on them.
dreamingoftigers Posted April 20, 2011 Posted April 20, 2011 God, that example was really a messed up one. wow...
J200 Posted April 20, 2011 Posted April 20, 2011 One of the manipulation things I can think of that she did was pretending really being into his kids and buying them lots of stuff but she doesn't really like them. My best friend (who is her cousin) told me she is mean to the kids and yells at them when the guy isn't around. She hated the kids because he had them with another woman. Another manipulative thing she may have did was to mix in the underwear of her ex bf (whom she was seeing on the side) with his when she was doing his laundry (when they were already dating). To make him jealous maybe. This guy is a player himself though! When he was dating her he told other women he was single and still trying to see what was out there; inviting other women on possible trips. They both played each other; he was and is a big time player. They both play games with each other but that's how they like it. In the end I think he played HER because he got her so hooked she would cry over him and become crazy jealous, like one of those possessive crazy girlfriends. My point was that some women do need game if they want to get a guy that has a lot of women after him; it's a lot of competition. If a guy has LOTS of hot women after him then being hot is not enough; then you need game.
dreamingoftigers Posted April 20, 2011 Posted April 20, 2011 One of the manipulation things I can think of that she did was pretending really being into his kids and buying them lots of stuff but she doesn't really like them. My best friend (who is her cousin) told me she is mean to the kids and yells at them when the guy isn't around. She hated the kids because he had them with another woman. Another manipulative thing she may have did was to mix in the underwear of her ex bf (whom she was seeing on the side) with his when she was doing his laundry (when they were already dating). To make him jealous maybe. This guy is a player himself though! When he was dating her he told other women he was single and still trying to see what was out there; inviting other women on possible trips. They both played each other; he was and is a big time player. They both play games with each other but that's how they like it. In the end I think he played HER because he got her so hooked she would cry over him and become crazy jealous, like one of those possessive crazy girlfriends. My point was that some women do need game if they want to get a guy that has a lot of women after him; it's a lot of competition. If a guy has LOTS of hot women after him then being hot is not enough; then you need game. So the prize for winning this game is an extremely unhealthy relationship riddled with dysfunction. yay.
welikeincrowds Posted April 20, 2011 Posted April 20, 2011 My point was that some women do need game if they want to get a guy that has a lot of women after him; it's a lot of competition. If a guy has LOTS of hot women after him then being hot is not enough; then you need game. That's not "game", buddy. Game is the harmless flirting you do to get a girl on a date with you. What you are describing is ****ed up behavior from horrible people.
welikeincrowds Posted April 20, 2011 Posted April 20, 2011 Game is the manipulation of women. It has nothing to do with flirting a woman to go on a date with you. If that was so, most men would be PUA's I would rather refer to that as pickup. If you want to define "game" that way, then you might as well say that no man needs game, but that's just not what that word means to me.
thatone Posted April 20, 2011 Posted April 20, 2011 I would never want to be with anyone, or be someone, who considers finding/selecting a mate to be akin to "winning" a "game." well i've got some bad news for you. most if not all of the men you've been around, much less been in relationships with, have probably called it all a game. consider this: it's not that it is or isn't a game. it's that you have a different opinion and perception of the word game than men do.
welikeincrowds Posted April 20, 2011 Posted April 20, 2011 You can't hijack words and define them as you want them to be, bro. If you've studied language at all you would realize how silly a thing that is to say. But really, it's fine, because if all we disagree on is the meaning of a slang word then we've got nothing to worry about.
fishtaco Posted April 20, 2011 Posted April 20, 2011 If you've studied language at all you would realize how silly a thing that is to say. But really, it's fine, because if all we disagree on is the meaning of a slang word then we've got nothing to worry about. Game is an overloaded word. I could mean literally the games that people play, or it could simply mean "capability".
Andy_K Posted April 20, 2011 Posted April 20, 2011 I agree with kiss_andmakeup. A vagina, and not being nuts, is sufficient game for most girls to get a worthwhile guy. Perhaps a gym membership too.
zengirl Posted April 20, 2011 Posted April 20, 2011 No you don't. You're decent looking, not a slut, good personality: you'll be just fine. I'm also approachable. And I approach men sometimes too (which is what 'game' is, really, the ability to approach and make something happen). Game is about conveying interest in a way that prompts someone to do something. If women are not assertive, they may still get somewhere, but I tend to think that it's EASIER to date and you get BETTER guys if you have the game to go after the ones you want (whether that's by flat out asking them or getting them to approach you). Oh, plenty of women have game. It's just a totally different game with different rules. Precisely. It's different but no less there. The only "game" a woman (who is reasonably attractive or who dates within her respective "league") ever needs is to not appear as a desperate nut job. Leaving endless strings of needy texts and voicemails, professing undying love on the first date, and browsing engagement rings one week in would qualify as desperate nut job behaviour. So I would argue that a woman need not have game, she need simply to be sane. Unless for some reason she wants to attract a "game player," but in that case I'd wonder why she'd even be interested. There are people out there who don't fill their lives with constant drama and deception; seek them out. I think there's a lot more to whether men approach --- especially the BEST guys --- than whether or not a girl is beautiful. To me, this kind of "game" (He's got no game) is pre-first-date; it's about getting noticed, asked out, or asking someone out. A lot of women aren't assertive enough to do this, no matter their beauty, and there are girls who are less beautiful but always seem to have good romances going and guys ask them out and think they're cool as anything. To me, game is just the confidence to approach someone/direct someone to approach you and then the ability to get that scenario to close into an official "date." I would furthermore say for ladies, that a lot of women have no game and get themselves asked on too many "sort of" dates and get into too many "not dating" relationships. Game, in this case, means starting out strong. Most guys, if I've actually put in any effort and wanted them to take me out, take me on a proper date. My roommate is pretty, not crazy, and went through the longest spell of "hanging out" with various guys (she wanted to be really dating). To me, that's having no game. She wasn't getting what she wanted. Generally, those scenarios start off with the first date. If the guy asks you to something well-planned (even as simple as dinner at a specific place), that's a date. If you grab drinks or hang out at a house or something, that's not a proper date. Women who settle for that (when seeking actual relationships -- women can have hangout fun too, if they want) have no game.
kiss_andmakeup Posted April 20, 2011 Posted April 20, 2011 I know that what you was talking about. women use the emotional thing on men but they dont know it is being played on them. Oh, so emotional manipulation is okay as long as the other party is unaware of it? Her friend got her just deserts for her emotional manipulation and plotting: a dysfunctional and mutually deceptive relationship with a player. I can't think of a better justification of my point. Games are necessary, sure, if you want to attract a player. For me, no thanks. well i've got some bad news for you. most if not all of the men you've been around, much less been in relationships with, have probably called it all a game. consider this: it's not that it is or isn't a game. it's that you have a different opinion and perception of the word game than men do. Thanks for the sage advice, but I like to avoid making blanket statements about an entire gender.
kiss_andmakeup Posted April 20, 2011 Posted April 20, 2011 I'm also approachable. And I approach men sometimes too (which is what 'game' is, really, the ability to approach and make something happen). Game is about conveying interest in a way that prompts someone to do something. If women are not assertive, they may still get somewhere, but I tend to think that it's EASIER to date and you get BETTER guys if you have the game to go after the ones you want (whether that's by flat out asking them or getting them to approach you). Precisely. It's different but no less there. I think there's a lot more to whether men approach --- especially the BEST guys --- than whether or not a girl is beautiful. To me, this kind of "game" (He's got no game) is pre-first-date; it's about getting noticed, asked out, or asking someone out. A lot of women aren't assertive enough to do this, no matter their beauty, and there are girls who are less beautiful but always seem to have good romances going and guys ask them out and think they're cool as anything. To me, game is just the confidence to approach someone/direct someone to approach you and then the ability to get that scenario to close into an official "date." I would furthermore say for ladies, that a lot of women have no game and get themselves asked on too many "sort of" dates and get into too many "not dating" relationships. Game, in this case, means starting out strong. Most guys, if I've actually put in any effort and wanted them to take me out, take me on a proper date. My roommate is pretty, not crazy, and went through the longest spell of "hanging out" with various guys (she wanted to be really dating). To me, that's having no game. She wasn't getting what she wanted. Generally, those scenarios start off with the first date. If the guy asks you to something well-planned (even as simple as dinner at a specific place), that's a date. If you grab drinks or hang out at a house or something, that's not a proper date. Women who settle for that (when seeking actual relationships -- women can have hangout fun too, if they want) have no game. That's a good point, I guess I just personally don't view that as lack of game. I view that as settling for less than what you want. When I think of "game" I immediately think of "game playing" such as the behaviour that J200 described in her posts.
kiss_andmakeup Posted April 20, 2011 Posted April 20, 2011 You''re a misogynist who has probably never seen a woman naked beyond those who are on the net looking for attention, and now, after you fill the forum with your silly ideas about women and sex, you are also trying to pull out a Tolkien? Yes, languages are always changing, but languages aren't going to change because a women-hater(that would be you), now decided to play 'smart' and completely deny everything that the word 'game' stands for. Weird, I've followed a few of WeLikeInCrowds' posts, and he's never come off as a misogynist to me at all.
zengirl Posted April 20, 2011 Posted April 20, 2011 That's a good point, I guess I just personally don't view that as lack of game. I view that as settling for less than what you want. When I think of "game" I immediately think of "game playing" such as the behaviour that J200 described in her posts. Gotcha. Well, yes, in that case, though I'd say neither women nor men need THAT kind of game. I thought the OP was speaking to the "He can't get dates -- he has no game" phenomenon.
zengirl Posted April 20, 2011 Posted April 20, 2011 Weird, I've followed a few of WeLikeInCrowds' posts, and he's never come off as a misogynist to me at all. Agree. Seems like a nice enough bloke in fact. And less angry than his accusor (who, in other threads, seems to think marraige and commited relationships are misogynistic as well).
BiscuitXOXO Posted April 20, 2011 Posted April 20, 2011 2) marriage is dead. Period. There is no turning back. Co-habitation is the new marriage, and it won't last long enough for it to be considered a viable option in the life of a couple. Rather broad statement! There are still many people who don't believe marriage is dead. I mean, sure co-habitation is getting more common, but I don't think it is a replacement of traditional marriage. 3)You've never seen a man as a househusband, now have you? I have, and what's wrong with it? Sometimes the man gets along just fine. There's nothing wrong man who is affirmed in his own manliness w/o needing to earn more than his wife. And housekeeping isn't easy.
Recommended Posts