whichwayisup Posted January 11, 2006 Posted January 11, 2006 There are different kind of players out there, in varying degrees. Atleast from what I know and have experienced. But I get what you're saying too.
SmoochieFace Posted January 11, 2006 Posted January 11, 2006 Players don't get serious, they never make an investment, they conquer and use. "Dating", I use that term loosely, is a game to them. Have to jump in here. Not wanting to put you in the spotlight, JS, but here goes... You say that players are out to *conquer* and *use* - and I agree totally. However, you told another poster in a different thread (http://www.loveshack.org/forums/t79149/) to "go for it" when she mentioned looking for a FWB. Aren't those who are in FWBs *conquering* and *using* as well? Isn't THAT a game too? The way I see it, players and FWBers are in it for the sex. No *relationship* involved, right? So what is the difference between the two?
JS17 Posted January 11, 2006 Posted January 11, 2006 The way I see it, players and FWBers are in it for the sex. No *relationship* involved, right? So what is the difference between the two? An FWB is a consentual agreement between two adults to take care of their sexual needs without a relationship. A player will not divulge the fact that they are not interested in anything but a piece of @ss. It's one sided.
SmoochieFace Posted January 11, 2006 Posted January 11, 2006 An FWB is a consentual agreement between two adults to take care of their sexual needs without a relationship. A player will not divulge the fact that they are not interested in anything but a piece of @ss. It's one sided. So it's the *consentual agreement* that differentiates the two... okay, thanks. Still *conquering* and *using* though, right, with FWBs being mutually acceptable and players being all about them?
whichwayisup Posted January 11, 2006 Posted January 11, 2006 One is malcious and other isn't. A FWB knows the rules at hand, and there is common like and respect. The player couldn't care less either way.
JS17 Posted January 11, 2006 Posted January 11, 2006 So it's the *consentual agreement* that differentiates the two... okay, thanks. Still *conquering* and *using* though, right, with FWBs being mutually acceptable and players being all about them? Well it's kind of off topic but this is how I see it, this is my opinion. I think that there is a difference between using and having an agenda. Everyone has an agenda in every interpersonal relationship. For example, the agenda may be that you want to be loved. Seems to most of us this is not really an agenda right? Because it's something that comes naturally to many of us. But it is an agenda. Say the person that you're involved with doesn't want to love you. Your agenda doesn't fit their needs and wants. In the example of the FWB, it is both parties agenda to have someone that they are comfortable with in a sexual relationship but with no other connection. A player is someone with a specific agenda. Their agenda is to use people without the consent of the other individual. The term is player because they are playing a person, the point is to con them into believing they are both on the same page as far as interest in one another is concerned. You can have people out there whose agenda is to sleep with many men or women but as long as they are upfront about it then I don't view them as a player. That's my opinion. That's how I define it. I'm sure everyone has their own definitions.
portableversion Posted January 11, 2006 Posted January 11, 2006 frankly, i am disgusted with hetersexual relationships in general. money for sex and sex for money are what most of them boil down to. As for being a player, most men can't be players. To be a player and not a mere wannabe requires good looks AND lots of money or 'they' won't bite. Period. So the end result is a lot of wannabe, bitter men with their dicks in their hands... So those 'young' men you talk about....over half fall into the wannabe category. Most of the single guys i know constantly bitch about never getting pussy. Same with the married guys!!
justagirliegirl Posted January 12, 2006 Posted January 12, 2006 then..be a player..no one is stopping you. FWIW, the grass is not greener on the other side of the fence. most married women i know are very unhappy and unfulfilled (hence why they look mad all the time). they have given their lives up for their husbands and children and have no identity of their own (hence why they expect their husbands to show some consideration instead of going off with their buds whenever they feel like it). their husbands pay them no attention but treat them like their mother (they think that paying a few of the bills suffices for doing their part). Personally i'm much happier and have more fun as a single woman playing the field, even when my dance card isn't full, than i was in my marriage. yet i still hope to be remarried one day. (but only if its a great relationship.) Amen to that! I look around the women my age and that seems how it is. They did give up themselves for their family. I mean I did it too for 20 years before I left. I felt like a maid. I changed my life around so much after I left. I actually have a self again! I have been having a blast. I have advanced in my career and now I lazing about all summer in another country. Those people probably envy me as I am having a blast. I'm not a player but I'm still having fun.
slubberdegullion Posted January 12, 2006 Posted January 12, 2006 As sad as it may seem, I have to concur with Woggle's original post. Every single one of the married fellows that I know - without exception - rue the day they married. Sad to say, but that's the reality. Their wives, on the other hand, are for the most part pretty happy, with a couple of exceptions (usually due to financial issues). I can speak more about the player issue because I was one, but I've just arrived home after a 2500 mile trip, and I'm a wee bit shattered. Until tomorrow then...
Author Woggle Posted January 12, 2006 Author Posted January 12, 2006 frankly, i am disgusted with hetersexual relationships in general. money for sex and sex for money are what most of them boil down to. As for being a player, most men can't be players. To be a player and not a mere wannabe requires good looks AND lots of money or 'they' won't bite. Period. So the end result is a lot of wannabe, bitter men with their dicks in their hands... So those 'young' men you talk about....over half fall into the wannabe category. Most of the single guys i know constantly bitch about never getting pussy. Same with the married guys!! I was a real playetr before I commited to my current GF. I think if you meet somebody like the woman in my life it is more than worth it but women like her are rare. To me it's a quality relationship or nothing.
Weye Posted January 12, 2006 Posted January 12, 2006 This is a good discussion. Of all the married men I know, only maybe one or two out of many are happy that they got married. And the problems in the marriage are all the same. He tries to be nice to her, she takes advantage. Or he becomes a doormat, bowing down to his wive's every whim. The wife complains about him for every little thing. He is walking on eggshells after 1 year mark has passed. She gains 10 pounds a year after marriage. Sex drops down to once every few months. She one day up and decides that she wants out of the marriage. They get divorced and he's paying child support and alimony for the next 18 years. Or she's lying in bed next to him dreaming about being with the 'player' whoshe spread her legs for the other night. These are just a few examples. Now I'm not saying all of this to bash women, turn this into a gender war or anything. I know men can be just as bad or worse sometimes. But Woggle makes good points. Faced with all this, knowing this is probably going to happen to him, does it really make sense for a guy to get married in this day and age? I wish it were, because I hope to get married someday, but frankly, it looks like its more trouble than its worth.
Author Woggle Posted January 12, 2006 Author Posted January 12, 2006 This is a good discussion. Of all the married men I know, only maybe one or two out of many are happy that they got married. And the problems in the marriage are all the same. He tries to be nice to her, she takes advantage. Or he becomes a doormat, bowing down to his wive's every whim. The wife complains about him for every little thing. He is walking on eggshells after 1 year mark has passed. She gains 10 pounds a year after marriage. Sex drops down to once every few months. She one day up and decides that she wants out of the marriage. They get divorced and he's paying child support and alimony for the next 18 years. Or she's lying in bed next to him dreaming about being with the 'player' whoshe spread her legs for the other night. These are just a few examples. Now I'm not saying all of this to bash women, turn this into a gender war or anything. I know men can be just as bad or worse sometimes. But Woggle makes good points. Faced with all this, knowing this is probably going to happen to him, does it really make sense for a guy to get married in this day and age? I wish it were, because I hope to get married someday, but frankly, it looks like its more trouble than its worth. I agree with every word you say and of course women will think we are bashing them but in way too many cases this is the truth. If you are a woman and this doesn't apply to you don't take offense. I think that many of these problems can be avoided by having a spine from the jump. Too many nice guys have sucker stamped on their forehead so they will attract women that will walk all over them while a man like me will let a woman know from the jump he won't stand for any crap so I attract a respectable woman. I will be out of there before it even gets to the point of me walking on eggshells.
ReluctantRomeo Posted January 12, 2006 Posted January 12, 2006 As for the emtional component, we all suffer in relationships. Its the nature of the beast. On the flip side of suffering and unrequited self-sacrifice, we can also have really wonderful, fulfilling, life-changing experiences. These are just as valid. No pain, no gain. you have to risk experiencing the bad in order to get the good parts. Exactly. Relationships are about long term gain.... this often includes short term pain. Like a lot of things in this life, you have to take the rough with the smooth. I know plenty of happy marriages and long term relationships and personally I'm almost always happier in a relationship than playing the field. So, while I agree that some relationships are unequal with one partner being exploited by a selfish other, I don't think this is the rule. In fact, IME there's a good link between whining about the pain of relationships and an inability to delay gratification.
helena abadi Posted January 12, 2006 Posted January 12, 2006 hey woggle, you are generalising. obviously the situation with your friend is coloring your perspective. sounds as though you are pretty upset about what has happened to him. sure, single players have fun. they get plenty of regular sex and are free of the work that goes into a committed relationship. (married players should be hung, drawn and quartered.) their emotional attachment is minimal. they feel little or no pain for those they deceive. i believe more men than women are players. it's Human Biology 101 - men spreading their seed to perpetuate the species and women wired to nurture the offspring, a longer term commitment, so emotional attachment in a relationship is more important. that's not to denigrate all the wonderful men out there who are sincere, committed, faithful individuals and great dads as well. and there are some appalling women out there who wreck men's hearts and lives too. i think most players, in the end, get tired of the game and want emotional intimacy and attachment. altho some may still be players off and on all their lives. i know lots of happy marriages and long-term relationships too.
Author Woggle Posted January 12, 2006 Author Posted January 12, 2006 I am generalizing and I do know happy marriages. The thing I do notice thjough is that the truly happy marriages I know are between strong and independent people. It seems like both strong men and women end up with the best relationships. The doormats keep getting walked on. It just hurts to see a close friend reduced to this. I gave him the number to my divorce lawyer who got me out of it unscathed and I didn't owe her a dime. I also told him to go for custody of their daughter because she is abusive and the daughter can't stand her. Courts are much more fair to men in custody cases than they were 10 years ago so he has a chance. Plus the situation wit my coworker and I had just had it with women this week. Good thing I do have a good woman to go home to.
slubberdegullion Posted January 12, 2006 Posted January 12, 2006 i think most players, in the end, get tired of the game and want emotional intimacy and attachment. You just nailed it, helena. I, for one, grew weary of the conquest mentality and have been looking for something to break through the brittle veneer that I had created for myself. Alas, when I thought I had found it, the veneer cracked, my heart was exposed, and I was rejected. Now, in my player days, I wouldn't have given it much of a second thought; it would simply be a matter of moving on to the next conquest. But instead, I experienced rejection in it's truest form, and it hurt, dammit. I have no desire to return to the player lifestyle, because it's no longer a challenge. But I can certainly see why some men - some women too, though to a lesser degree IME - are drawn to that way of living because it avoids the messy complications and necessary pains of relationships and rejections.
helena abadi Posted January 12, 2006 Posted January 12, 2006 I am generalizing and I do know happy marriages. The thing I do notice thjough is that the truly happy marriages I know are between strong and independent people. It seems like both strong men and women end up with the best relationships. The doormats keep getting walked on. the doormats get walked on in both sexes. imbalanced relationships are doomed to failure. and yes, v. good observation. strong men and women DO end up with the best relationships. codependency is not an issue. Plus the situation wit my coworker and I had just had it with women this week. Good thing I do have a good woman to go home to. sure, we kinda knew you were venting. really glad to hear you've got a good woman to go home to. better you vent at us than at her.
helena abadi Posted January 12, 2006 Posted January 12, 2006 I am generalizing and I do know happy marriages. The thing I do notice thjough is that the truly happy marriages I know are between strong and independent people. It seems like both strong men and women end up with the best relationships. The doormats keep getting walked on. Plus the situation wit my coworker and I had just had it with women this week. Good thing I do have a good woman to go home to. damn, i got the quotes and my reply mixed up.... the doormats get walked on in both sexes. imbalanced relationships are doomed to failure. and yes, v. good observation. strong men and women DO end up with the best relationships. codependency is not an issue. sure, we kinda knew you were venting. really glad to hear you've got a good woman to go home to. better you vent at us than at her.
SmoochieFace Posted January 12, 2006 Posted January 12, 2006 But instead, I experienced rejection in it's truest form, and it hurt, dammit. You have to experience that hurt otherwise you will never grow. That's my beef with the players: they think they are *all that* but the truth is that they really are not as they are emotionally immature. The *game* they play is basically a way to avoid growing up and being emotionally mature. And avoiding things results from fear.
slubberdegullion Posted January 12, 2006 Posted January 12, 2006 That's my beef with the players: they think they are *all that* but the truth is that they really are not as they are emotionally immature. The *game* they play is basically a way to avoid growing up and being emotionally mature. Oh, I don't know about that. I was involved in committed relationships long before I decided to morph into a player (after my divorce... I was never unfaithful). It wasn't a conscious choice to backslide into immaturity; rather, it was more of simply taking advantage of the new single situation that I found myself in. Was it immature? I don't know, that's not really for me to judge, but strangely the only regret I have about it was when I stopped and endured the cold slap of rejection. I won't go back to it, though. Been there, done that, bought the t-shirt, wore the sucker threadbare.
helena abadi Posted January 12, 2006 Posted January 12, 2006 I won't go back to it, though. Been there, done that, bought the t-shirt, wore the sucker threadbare. oh that's a good one. LOL. interesting that you won't go back to it.
SmoochieFace Posted January 12, 2006 Posted January 12, 2006 It wasn't a conscious choice to backslide into immaturity; rather, it was more of simply taking advantage of the new single situation that I found myself in. I agree in that it may not have been a *conscious* decision - I don't think you just woke up one morning and told yourself "I'm gonna be a player." Was it immature? I don't know, that's not really for me to judge... Well, that's to be expected. Honestly, are most people really gonna come out and SAY that they are/were immature? Probably not as most people have a *save face* mentality.
slubberdegullion Posted January 12, 2006 Posted January 12, 2006 I agree in that it may not have been a *conscious* decision - I don't think you just woke up one morning and told yourself "I'm gonna be a player." I hate to burst your balloon, but it was actually pretty close to that. It was one of those, "Hey, if that dude can do it, why can't I?" moments. Honestly, are most people really gonna come out and SAY that they are/were immature? Well, I won't speak for anyone else, but I'll be the first to say that I've made some bad and immature decisions. I just don't know if becoming a player was one. It's where I needed to be at the time, to help re-build my confidence. I was lucky, too, in the sense that I wasn't making any promises that I couldn't keep. I made no secret of the fact that I was not interested in any sort of long term romantic entanglement, and while that cost me some time with some beautiful women, it proved to be a lure to others. So to each their own, I suppose.
helena abadi Posted January 12, 2006 Posted January 12, 2006 Well, I won't speak for anyone else, but I'll be the first to say that I've made some bad and immature decisions. I just don't know if becoming a player was one. It's where I needed to be at the time, to help re-build my confidence. I was lucky, too, in the sense that I wasn't making any promises that I couldn't keep. I made no secret of the fact that I was not interested in any sort of long term romantic entanglement, and while that cost me some time with some beautiful women, it proved to be a lure to others. So to each their own, I suppose. i really like your honesty. at least you were an honest player, and not one of those who charmed their way into women's knickers with false promises. i wonder how many people become players after divorces etc, in order to rebuild their confidence?
slubberdegullion Posted January 12, 2006 Posted January 12, 2006 i wonder how many people become players after divorces etc, in order to rebuild their confidence? That's an excellent question. I wish I had an answer.
Recommended Posts