Lishy Posted February 28, 2006 Posted February 28, 2006 What does that mean and does it work? Examples?
blind_otter Posted February 28, 2006 Posted February 28, 2006 That's funny I was just thinking how whenever I am emotionally distant, I seem to get men all sorts of attached to me, but as soon as I start getting attached it all goes down the s***ter.
Author Lishy Posted February 28, 2006 Author Posted February 28, 2006 Hahhahahahha Oh Otter you crack me up! It is so true! And it does work! The thing is that how would you turn the tables if someone did that to you and you knew their game?
shell1162 Posted February 28, 2006 Posted February 28, 2006 i genrally find like u say u treat them bad and they cant do enough for you, but the minute u show abit of weakness they hit u while ur down and its all over, men are a hard species to figure out, lol
SmoochieFace Posted February 28, 2006 Posted February 28, 2006 What does that mean and does it work? Examples? Looks and smells like another one of those turds from that dumbass *Rules* book...
whichwayisup Posted February 28, 2006 Posted February 28, 2006 A turd is still a turd no matter how much you polish it. It's not how big it gets, it's how MAD it gets... ...
noclobber Posted March 1, 2006 Posted March 1, 2006 What does that mean and does it work? Examples? In your case Lishy, this would translate to - Be mean by ignoring the text messages from Mr.Driveby and make him keen that way
BlahBlahQueen Posted March 1, 2006 Posted March 1, 2006 That's funny I was just thinking how whenever I am emotionally distant, I seem to get men all sorts of attached to me, but as soon as I start getting attached it all goes down the s***ter. SAME s*** HAPPENS TO ME.
Outcast Posted March 1, 2006 Posted March 1, 2006 Yep. Just what you want. A bunch of guys who have zero self-esteem and will allow you to mistreat them. Oh boy would that ever be fun. There are plenty of ways you can engage dysfunctional behaviours and, in so doing, attract no end of suitors. However, do you really want to keep the fish you net when you use such tactics? I kinda doubt it. Hell, you can dress like a slut, head for the seamier side of town, and you'll have to use stilts to work your way through the pile of guys you might find. So go for it, says I.
ReluctantRomeo Posted March 1, 2006 Posted March 1, 2006 There are plenty of ways you can engage dysfunctional behaviours and, in so doing, attract no end of suitors. However, do you really want to keep the fish you net when you use such tactics? I kinda doubt it. Thanks guys for making my morning - the turd metaphors were particularly entertaining I agree 100%.
juliainoz Posted March 1, 2006 Posted March 1, 2006 i cant be bothered doing this treat them mean keep them keen - ive not done it for the last two men ive been with - honestly i prefer them to see myself than do that - one took me for granted, but this new one ive been with for almost 6 weeks now - treats me the same, expresses his feelings, contacts me at least once a day, wants to spend time with me......... I refuse to play games - as far as im concerned if they want to be with me they will, if not - their loss
DWJK Posted March 2, 2006 Posted March 2, 2006 That's funny I was just thinking how whenever I am emotionally distant, I seem to get men all sorts of attached to me, but as soon as I start getting attached it all goes down the s***ter. I'm sure youve already heard all thsi but, men (And espcially women) love challenges. Its sort of like (and I hate to sound too "wu-wu") but a cat will frantically claw away @ a string when its above its head just out of reach, but as soon as you let go of the string it looks at it for a second and walk away.
Author Lishy Posted March 2, 2006 Author Posted March 2, 2006 I started this thread because of something someone said to me the other day. He said that it works when you treat women mean and that it does in fact keep them keen. I argued that yes it does work, temporarily! When you chase something you generally find that when you catch it, it was not worth the chase! Games are for kids and I threw my gymslip away years ago!
kitten chick Posted March 2, 2006 Posted March 2, 2006 Everyone that I've treated well has walked all over me. Everyone I've been emotionally distant with has chased me to no end. It's sad but true, I'd prefer it to be the other way around.
Author Lishy Posted March 2, 2006 Author Posted March 2, 2006 But KC the ones who have chased you, how where they when they got you? I think that the ones who just play games are the wrong ones for us!
kitten chick Posted March 2, 2006 Posted March 2, 2006 All but one treated me fine but I just wasn't interested, the one who chased me that I fell in love with treated me worse than any person should ever be treated.
lindya Posted March 2, 2006 Posted March 2, 2006 I'm sure youve already heard all thsi but, men (And espcially women) love challenges. Positive challenges that stimulate you are great. The "treat 'em mean, keep 'em keen" games that people talk about playing usually just amount to the deliberate shutting down of channels of communication and the with-holding of affection. When you do that to someone, you're not giving them a challenge. You're indicating to them that you're starting to withdraw from the relationship. I think that deep down, most people will panic if they sense the other person withdrawing from a relationship that is in any way meaningful to them. It raises all sorts of primitive fears about abandonment. Watch how a child of three reacts if their parent suddenly withdraws affection as a form of punishment ( ). Generally there will be tantrums, tears....and, eventually, affectionate (and affection seeking) behaviour from the child as they check that they're not being abandoned. Conversely, watch how an adolescent of 14 reacts. They're far more likely to storm off into their room, sulk for hours - and, in extreme cases, run away from home. The 14 year old is more capable of surviving on his/her own than the 3 year old is. He's therefore less afraid of abandonment...and will tend to react with anger rather than panic (though of course there will still be elements of panic that he/she is covering up) in response to any threat of abandonment. Maybe people play these games out of curiosity - to establish the emotional age their partner is likely to operate from in these situations....but surely there have to be better ways of building relationships than constantly engaging in destructive and potentially abusive mind-games with someone you're supposed to care about.
SmoochieFace Posted March 2, 2006 Posted March 2, 2006 I think that the ones who just play games are the wrong ones for us! You're just starting to figure that out???
monkey00 Posted March 2, 2006 Posted March 2, 2006 Positive challenges that stimulate you are great. The "treat 'em mean, keep 'em keen" games that people talk about playing usually just amount to the deliberate shutting down of channels of communication and the with-holding of affection. When you do that to someone, you're not giving them a challenge. You're indicating to them that you're starting to withdraw from the relationship. I think that deep down, most people will panic if they sense the other person withdrawing from a relationship that is in any way meaningful to them. It raises all sorts of primitive fears about abandonment. Watch how a child of three reacts if their parent suddenly withdraws affection as a form of punishment ( ). Generally there will be tantrums, tears....and, eventually, affectionate (and affection seeking) behaviour from the child as they check that they're not being abandoned. Conversely, watch how an adolescent of 14 reacts. They're far more likely to storm off into their room, sulk for hours - and, in extreme cases, run away from home. The 14 year old is more capable of surviving on his/her own than the 3 year old is. He's therefore less afraid of abandonment...and will tend to react with anger rather than panic (though of course there will still be elements of panic that he/she is covering up) in response to any threat of abandonment. Maybe people play these games out of curiosity - to establish the emotional age their partner is likely to operate from in these situations....but surely there have to be better ways of building relationships than constantly engaging in destructive and potentially abusive mind-games with someone you're supposed to care about. I do agree. But sometimes a person will only tolerate so much until they realize the reality of it and give up, and they too withdraw affection. i guess it depends on the extent of the person's emotional attachment. Perhaps one minute showing complete affection, then the next minute take it away completely...it really messes with the head. However slowly decreasing affection over a period of time can soften the blow. Kind of like social conditioning. Well that's what happened in my last relationship and i've learned from my mistakes, but regretful i didnt realize until it was too late. I wouldnt really say these are games. But it's more push-pull. If you're treated nice all the time, obviously too much of a good thing will just make you sick.
BeFree Posted March 3, 2006 Posted March 3, 2006 Relationship are a dance. There is a constant pull and push. But it is not about being mean to someone. That never gets any where. It's about moving at the same pace. Let the man love you, don't force him to. Men are hunters by nature. They get uncomfortable and pull away when they feel they are being chased. When you back off they feel that it is safe to continue hunting. That's why the perk up when you pull away.
lindya Posted March 3, 2006 Posted March 3, 2006 I do agree. But sometimes a person will only tolerate so much until they realize the reality of it and give up, and they too withdraw affection. Exactly. Like the teenager running away from home. People reach their limits, and they don't always give clear signals as to when they're approaching those limits...possibly because sometimes they don't know themselves that they're approaching them. I think when a person reaches emotional crisis point, that's when they revert to very child-like affection-seeking behaviour. If someone plays the rejecting "treat 'em mean" game at that point, it's going to damage the relationship beyond repair - unless the "affection seeker" is incredibly needy, isn't able to use any other coping methods to deal with the rejection and is totally used to being humiliated when they revert to child mode because they do it so often.
monkey00 Posted March 3, 2006 Posted March 3, 2006 Relationship are a dance. There is a constant pull and push. But it is not about being mean to someone. That never gets any where. It's about moving at the same pace. Let the man love you, don't force him to. Men are hunters by nature. They get uncomfortable and pull away when they feel they are being chased. When you back off they feel that it is safe to continue hunting. That's why the perk up when you pull away. Yes it is a dance. I suppose it's only fair because the excitement does keep us on the lookout....however, dance too far away and so will the other. Exactly. Like the teenager running away from home. People reach their limits, and they don't always give clear signals as to when they're approaching those limits...possibly because sometimes they don't know themselves that they're approaching them. hm..running away from home...please elaborate the scenario. But usually the case for that is just someone running away from their problems. and it's true the sad fact is most people give up on relationships because they dont face the problems and resolve them before it reaches the point-of-no-return. This very kind of thing aggravates me because when someone assumes you're not on the same page as them, that's it ... it's over. and its disappointing to see something crumble but you know it would have been possible to fix by communicating. i suppose its normal for human nature to protect one's ego from further damage. friendships, family, couple relationships....etc...it all applies equally. I think when a person reaches emotional crisis point, that's when they revert to very child-like affection-seeking behaviour. If someone plays the rejecting "treat 'em mean" game at that point, it's going to damage the relationship beyond repair - unless the "affection seeker" is incredibly needy, isn't able to use any other coping methods to deal with the rejection and is totally used to being humiliated when they revert to child mode because they do it so often. often it's a rare case the 'affection seeker' comes back for more....unless of course they're emotionally damaged/unstable, immature, low-self esteemed, and unconfident. The more they succumb to this kind of treatment, they more they're conditioned to react to it.
ReluctantRomeo Posted March 3, 2006 Posted March 3, 2006 I agree with previous analysis that these games are unhealthy. They may get short term results - and indeed, most of the player gurus seem to be recommending short interactions and relationships which last 1 night - but they're not a sound basis in the long term. Since we're mammals, using the examples of some our relatives might help make this clear If I treated my cats (or a4a her dogs, donkeys and goodness knows what else ) like this, we wouldn't have a good relationship. First they'd be insecure, then they'd become disruptive, and finally in the long term they'd probably end up distant and/or hostile. If you want a relationship like this, go ahead with treat 'em mean. If you want warmth and affection in the long term, then be prepared to give it. If this is the case for every other mammal, I see no reason why humans should suddenly buck the trend. The grain of truth in "treat 'em mean" arguments, is that the level of affection should build up appropriately and both sides should have to work equally on the relationship. This is clear too when viewed thru from a cat perspective - overbearing and sudden affection is threatening and stifling. It's much healthier when both parties match and build slowly.
Recommended Posts