Advanced Game Theory
‘The game’, right ? Who’s got ‘game’? Seduction sounds nice, but it’s just way too formal and sweet a word for most people. Deal with it: today, it’s called “the game”.
There are all these weird rules that govern “the game”. In America for example if you get a phone number it’s a known social rule that you won’t call that same night, but rather 1 to 3 days later. And after that the first couple rounds of “the game” are essentially a tug-of-war where you demonstrate to the other that you want them, but not that bad. “I like you, but I’m not desperate for you”. I believe the entire philosophy behind “the game” is best encompassed in the French saying “Suis-moi, je te fuis. Fuis moi, je te suis” (Cling to me, I’ll run away; run away from me, I’ll cling to you). And each region, each age group, each culture, each fucking person has different versions of “the game”.
Implementation, however, is a different thing: guys for example can choose amongst a number of strategies: a romantic, albeit weak, one is the strategy of walking up to a girl, telling her she’s cute, and then walking away. The idea behind is that it sort of works like crack: once you taste a bit you’re supposed to want more. It’s daring, but usually the guy who uses it has a combination of two factors: 1) he’s confident enough to tell a girl he likes her without knowing her and 2) he’s gutsy enough to walk away from her. On the whole, it’s a dangerous strategy to use unless you’re certain that the girl is equally confident and will come up to you to know more. Which is not very likely.
Then there’s that whole thing of getting to know someone, asking them questions, inviting them to a bit of socializing, and then making the move. The basic premise is that you’re genuinely interested in the person and are willing to take your time. It happens over days, if not weeks, so its users have to make sure they REALLY like the person because no one-night stands are happening this way, I can assure you. Also very risky in that you might become friends, and then you’re fucked (in an oxymoronic sort of way). Or, you might find out after a couple weeks that she has a boyfriend who's ugly as hell but great in bed (don't reach out for the gun).
Another great strategy if used effectively is commensurate with this early 21st century: displaying oneself surrounded by girls (one of my favourites). Women love guys who are loved by other women. Partly it’s that whole belief that if other women like him, there must be something about him; but it’s also that crazy intra-feminine rivalry where women simply MUST compete against each other for men. I used not to believe in it, but I’ve heard enough stories of girls whose best girlfriends slept with their boyfriends. Also, be careful not to act too much like another girlfriend or you might be seen as the substitute gay friend.
And I’m sure there are hours and books more “strategies” to write about, though in the long-run it boils down to a couple things: chemistry (both in and out of the bed), laughter, confidence, and sincerity. At least on the guy’s side.
Because then there’s “the game” for women. Now if you want to understand women, here’s all you need to know: it just don’t make sense.
I assure you, women are like Jackson Pollock art: in the beginning you don’t understand, and then just when you think you’re getting the hang of it, she comes slamming down at you with a red, spotted diagonal line that sends you back to the drawing board: you don’t understand, and you won't understand. You’ll never understand. In all honestly I don’t think there is much to understand.
Ah “the game”. Those who excel at it call it a dance between two people who secretly burn for each other but are strong enough to resist. Those who hate it always adopt that very candid, supposedly-reasonable position: “I’m mature. I don’t play games. I told her I liked her, and that’s that. If it’s gonna get complicated, forget about it.” Hahahaha! ‘Forget about it…’ you’ll never forget about it, bud, because that’s just her executing the French maxim (running away from you) and you vainly trying to convince others (as well as yourself) that you’re not desperate. I'm telling you, the game isn’t quite l’amour, but it’s pretty fucking powerful as well.
And then there are those who’ve memorized the theory but suck at the demonstration. In their minds they’re all Casanovas with brilliant responses who dream they can make the other horny with a mere batting of their eyelashes. But when they actually meet that person of their dreams, the script just sounds fake and the ‘strategy’ backfires horribly.
But I’m a firm believer of one thing, and I can’t say it hasn’t worked in the past: Remember that despite the Chanel glasses, Longchamp bag, uninterested if not downright rude look, and air of superiority, every beautiful woman remains just that: a woman. And a woman will always be a creature who loves to smile, be smiled at, who needs and wants affection, if perhaps in varying degrees, and who might very well be vulnerable and should therefore be treated with care.
Treating a woman like a goddess might be nice in the beginning, but humans and goddesses don’t have the same needs, and women don't want a slave but a partner by them. Yes indeed, in the long-run it's the human relationship that primes over everything. « Parce que malgré tout, même la plus belle des femmes reste une femme, et celui qui peut la traiter comme tel aura effectivement tout compris. »
posted by Ze Boss at 01:51
5 Comments:
“Advanced” game theory, Monsieur FOT? I find myself just a trifle skeptical of your claim to such vast knowledge when with a single stroke of the keyboard you sum up the psyche of women as “not much to understand.” Perhaps you forget that the hunter is also the hunted. And that “creature who loves to smile” is swifter, quieter, like the cat that enjoys toying with the ensnared mouse. Unless, of course, the poor Goddess makes the mistake of “getting to know” her prey… Methinks you are most edible, good sir.
Dear Dulcinea, this entry is as much comical as anything else. I know all too well that women are complex because of the depth of their substance. Perhaps you should understand this entry as an introspection from the male point-of-view, and an acknowledgement that men will really never completely understand women. For there lies the difference: though we may not understand something, it doesn't mean it isn't there.
Finally, what do you mean by I am most edible?
Ah, but the recognition of such “depths” and levels of complexity is a response skirting the true issue—do you, sir, perceive the aforementioned depths as rational and purposeful in their circuitry? From the tenor of your “introspective” musings I would venture to guess in the negative. And not to belabor semantic minutiae, but explicitly stating that there “isn’t much to understand” does not imply lack of understanding on your part as much as lack of substance on the woman’s. Oh, in addition, countries are not “in” continents; they are “on” them. But I digress. Granting that your male perspective on the game is generally quite accurate and valid, I nonetheless must note with a modicum of disappointment that it is neither applicable to the upper echelon of the intellectual elite nor to those who have mastered the game based not on instinctive tendencies but rather on introspective analysis such as your own. I shall assume based on hearsay that the omission of the former category is not unintentional and will confine my comments to the later, as she is and embodies all that French should be. While any of the scenarios in your original post would work, it is the one “commensurate with this early 21st century” that would be the most ineffective in the pursuit of a skilled player of the game. When she sees you surrounded by the giggly harem, the corner of her mouth will curl up slightly in her amusement at the transparency of your novice tactic. She’ll look you in the eye as she calls your bluff and walks tranquilly past; she knows none of those women can compare. Then the ball is once more in your own court; if she is worth pursuing further, you must revert to other strategies within the structure of your own rules. To complicate matters, she may decide to toy with you, mirroring your actions and ever-so-gently running the tips of her fingers through your hair on her way out the door with her catch for the evening, who is likely sexier than you. You feel a twinge of regret because deep down you know that under only minimally different circumstances that feather-like touch would have signified violently passionate sex, perhaps downstairs in the parking garage, before parting ways with the worldly glances of two sensual bons vivants satiated for at least one evening.
As for “edible”, I was reflecting on the likelihood that you would make a rather interesting mouse, to reuse the admittedly banal analogy.
I don't quite know where you're getting at, but I do know some things about you, which I will henceforth address:
1) In your attempts to use complex sentence structures, latin words, learned digressions, and a formal voice you are demonstrating how important the concepts of superiority and inferiority are to you. You would like to establish yourself as at least an equal, but in all probability a superior to me. This exaggerated attempt to exude of superiority implies an un-admitted feeling of inferiority.
2) You use logical arguments and game theory ("it is the one “commensurate with this early 21st century” that would be the most ineffective... She’ll look you in the eye as she calls your bluff and walks tranquilly past") to claim that a woman will resist a man surrounded by women. Because the empirical evidence for this strategy abounds aplenty (and I am not merely referring to myself), the only conclusion one can infer from your statement is that YOU would not fall for a guy surrounded by women. Further, your comment suggests that your reaction would be to call his bluff and walk away. In my opinion this means that you are afraid of being attracted passively (by a guy just surrounded) and would prefer to be seduced actively (by a guy who comes up to you). Moreover, this need to react by bluffing shows that you are the type who wants to be in control, and are thus afraid of giving in to something you cannot help (in this case, desire).
3) Finally, your need to constantly analyze and intellectualize everything is extremely worrisome. You live in your brain, and can very easily become its captive. You feel the need to rationalize everything, but I wonder how you react when you encounter something that cannot be rationalized. Incidentally, the topic at hand is the reference for matters that cannot be reasoned or logified, namely seduction and love. Le coeur a des raisons que la raison ne comprend pas.
With that said, the debate is interesting, and I would love if we continued it on a more regular basis not on my blog but via email. Please write to me at bizmarck@gmail.com (I am eager to hear your comments about my email name).
This is a cool blog...you should keep it up more!
Post a Comment
<< Home