sexual competition

X

Xev

Registered Senior Member
Amazon has recommended me this book for the third week in a row:

"HE'S JUST NOT THAT INTO YOU, by Greg Behrendt and Liz Tuccillo. (Simon Spotlight Entertainment, $19.95.) How a woman can tell if a relationship is going nowhere."

It's been on the NYT bestseller list six weeks in a row.

Apparently every estrogen-crazed freak I know has read it.

"He's just not into you! This book changed my life! I used to stalk guys after one night stands, and go to their houses and kill their wives and children just so I could wear a sexy outfit to the funerals, but now I know that they're just not into me!"

But really there's a huge market for this tripe. Remember the Rules? Whatever came after the Rules? What is it in American culture that makes us so hungry for books which purport to train us in the fine art of being disingenous shits to people we're attracted to?

Or is there something to it?
Has sex become so utterly mundane that we require a whole set of techniques to liven it up by putting it out of proportion? For that matter, is disingenuity and paranoia healthy when dealing with the opposite sex?

I've made the mistake of letting my interest in a fellow be known by the relationship-junkies who read this manner of tripe. Bad Xev! Lame move!
Now I have a not-so-succint commentary on this sort of book every time I meet one of his female acquaintences.

"So-and-so really likes you, but you need to make yourself less available"

Yet here I am, after work, sitting alone on my couch and thinking - perhaps they've got a point.

I'm a competitive woman by nature. I like being the first and the best, I like to win and I like to master whatever I decide to do. And yet I cannot apply that drive to my interactions with men, while most seem to think I ought to.
Hell, so-and-so is cool, I like him, sure I'm not going to be an obsessive stalker and call every day, but why should I act like I'm not interested in him when I am?
Why would I want to attract "psycho-boy who only wants what he can't have"? Or worse, a man who doesn't like me and just wants to bed me? I'd have to kill him or something, ha ha.
Being decently versed in the humanities, I know that the "war of the sexes" is an old theme which dates to at least the Middle Ages. Yet it seems so particular with me.

How is sex a zero sum game? The idea of it being a form of conflict does resonate with me, but if I take pleasure from a man ought I see myself as the loser? And he takes pleasure from me, so how could I be considered the winner? All the advice, all my own strategizing, has been a way of trying to make me feel that I've defeated him by bedding him.

Well come on - I'm not that bad a lay.

So I consider possible explanations, that this nonsense is pre-programmed evolutionary strategy, that we are all screwed up from Christianity and it's hatred of sex and women, that this is some form of sexual politics that the patriarchy uses to keep men and women at edge - yet I can find none convincing.

Is our society too competitive?
 
I too have heard much of this lamentable, yet typical book. I think what's happened is that we've become inculcated with a hyper-realistic notion of love. The kind of notion that says there is one true love for each of us, that a blissful, ever-happy, always satisfying relationship not only is possible, but is meant to be for each of us. Couple this notion with contemporary ego-centrism and we have the very situation you described. Nothing satisfies, nothing measures up. Peruse a copy of Cosmo: it's all there. How sad that we have allowed it to get to this point.
Thrown into the game theoretic model, it is indeed a zero sum game. For the most part because we've rigged the theoretical maximum payout to a scale completely out of comparison with all others.
 
Ah! so you do like men. Do you enjoy wrestling with them? ;)

ok, j/k.

I've thought about this myself. When it comes to the things that don't matter so much...yes, we are too competitive. You notice how everybodies trying to get their teeth super-white? How more men seem to be wearing pink shirts with the collars flipped up? And what kind of an advantage does that provide? nothing.

With the more important things, competition in NA society seems to have broken down. (Entropy). You don't see that in asia and europe because people are optimistic-- They have the 21st century to look forward too. (Enthalpy)

And us, we're already there: Waiting for them to catch up. In the meantime, we amuse ourselves by staring at our reflections on the sedan window...

Its all thermodynamics baby.
 
Xerxes said:
How more men seem to be wearing pink shirts with the collars flipped up? And what kind of an advantage does that provide? nothing.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't rule that out as a useless practice. While pink is still primarily a feminine color, supporting the current trends can be useful tool in getting noticed by females who expect men to have a sense of style and fashion. Mundane or not it does help to be on top of things while trying to look like you aren't trying at all.
 
It was a Brazillian team. Of women.
Click to expand...
heh..good to know ;). I didn't actually believe you were gay, but it doesn't matter if they were men or women; If they were playing soccer I can understand the lack of clothing.

Actually I was referring to Xev (thought she was completely uninterested by 'relationships')

supporting the current trends can be useful tool in getting noticed by females who expect men to have a sense of style and fashion. Mundane or not it does help to be on top of things while trying to look like you aren't trying at all.
Click to expand...

Hmm... I'm more of a mix and match person myself. (ie I don't like hip-hop culture, but my exco jacket is great.) As long as you don't dress colourblind, women don't seem to care. Maybe this is not the case in New York.

I can't see how the peacock look would be attractive..
 
Xerxes said:
Maybe this is not the case in New York.
Click to expand...

Oh yes, definetly. It is very easy for a man to wear pink here granted he exudes other traits to keep his hetero status intact.

I can't see how the peacock look would be attractive..
Click to expand...

No, the color schemes are a lot more subdued that you may think. These guys do not dress extremely gaudy and garish. If pink is present then 95% of the time only a white tee and faded blue jeans are present along with it. A limited pallate of colors.

Even in urban culture (infact that is where pink became cool for guys to wear) pink is huge. Pink Timberlands, doo rags etc etc.

Just to show spontaniety, crass, confidence in one's sexulaity men wil ldress in pink so the women can notice the brave show of fashion. Hell I own a pink t-shirt which I got compliments on.
 
Coffee:
I had six shots of vodka and a b52 (more vodka!) in the 3.5 hours since I posted this topic. I am now working it off sitting here in my chair.

Xerxes:
I don't think about 'relationships'. I prefer to live and let live - see what happens. I think the whole concept of a 'relationship' is a scam to make stupid women buy books like "He's not into you"

That said, I deal with this every time I'm seriously interested in a guy - how ought I act, the way I feel is right or the way I'm taught is right? The latter works well, but see now I'm writing a topic about it.

glaucon:
But doesn't tit for tat work best? It isn't a zero sum game - I enjoy so-and-so's company, he presumably enjoys mine, it works that way in any relationship. We both benefit - equally.
We're so hungry for conflict and competition that we've lied it into what's perhaps the one place it shouldn't be. And that's the other thing. We have no control over our lives, our economy is shit, we sell our souls to perform joyless tasks - sorry but I'm drunk and I get like this - and we act like we have something because we play "the rules"

"Oh, I will make sure he's actually into me, then I will descend from my pedestal and deign to show interest, else he will take advantage of my affections and just use me as a sexual puppet"

But the game is set up such that we're subconsciously thinking of it in these terms. Even making an effort to be natural - that is so inherently fucked - I'm paranoid as fuck.

That's digressing. A zero sum game implies a total winner and a total loser, with chess as the archetype. You have to put a lot of weird constructions on it to see sex that way. So why do we treat it that way?
 
Men like women who like them. It doesn't seem that complicated to me. It is when we are prepared to substitute a relationship where the guy and girl actually love eachother and are commited to eachother, for a state where the guy and the girl dont know eachother but both want sex and can conveniently achieve that end.
The trouble is that when two people who do not know eachother have sex, their union is both spiritual and bodily and their spirits desire faithfulness because they have given such a precious part of themselves over to the other. This is why casual sex feels great at the time but leaves you feeling not so great about yourself afterwards, particulary women who are more sensitive than men about these things i.e giving themselves completely to another.
The Christian morals are in place out of love for you, so that you are not hurt emotionally. I understand this is difficult to accept because The Christian law convicts you of wrongdoing. So you, the trangressor of yourself, feels bad for giving yourselves completely over to another who you do not know and then the Christian law comes along and beats you on the head for it as well. I can understand why people hate Christianity but the bible says that we live by grace and that no matter what you have done it can be forgiven and your spirit can be restored through that act of forgiveness. Jesus said (because He was for you) "Why do you not forgive yourselves?"
The law brings condemnation because it dissaproves of you being hurt spiritually and bodily. God put that law in place because He loves you. Since He loves you, you are set apart from punishment by believing in His love for you first. The human spirit was designed to fellowship with God who can justify you in every situation and lead you just as a shepard leads his sheep. I know you hate me for saying these things but I beg you to open your heart to the truth because it will set you free even as it has set me free.

peace to you

c20
 
That has a lot to do with the topics I've brought up, thank you.

But I'll address this:

It is when we are prepared to substitute a relationship where the guy and girl actually love eachother and are commited to eachother, for a state where the guy and the girl dont know eachother but both want sex and can conveniently achieve that end
Click to expand...

Since when does sex have to be with someone you love? With someone you even know?
How little creativity it must signify, to assume that sex can only be meaningful within the framework of romantic love. But you don't want to demean yourselves, you purveyers of that idea. So you fall in love at the snap of fingers, so that you may fall into bed just as fast.

I think casual sex must take more empathy than having sex with someone you love. To have sex with a person you care for is easy. But to reach out and to comprehend the flesh of a wholly unknown person? That must take the bravery and patience of a saint.

I understand this is difficult to accept because The Christian law convicts you of wrongdoing. So you, the trangressor of yourself, feels bad for giving yourselves completely over to another who you do not know
Click to expand...

Bad about one's crush?
Oh no. But that's illustrative too -

We've become so weak, that the insignificant amount of power a beautiful man has, is seen by us as a threat.
As if he would use that beauty to delude us, to cloud our rational minds. Well he might! But what does that signify but the degeneration of our instincts?

Thanks for the kind wishes and all, misplaced as they are.
 
Last edited:
Hi Xev,

Men who bow their heads to God, live in fear of hurting the beautiful thing that God has made in woman. We see how totally precious you are and we become like virgins before you. This pleases you to know that an innocent man loves you. An innocent man you can trust. Your being is a totally holy thing that men of God can see. We do not even know if we are allowed to touch you and indeed in the spirit of fornication we may not because it would be to sin against you and Our Father. You are His daughter. Only when two come together in His name are we blessed and He says that "No man may seperate it". This is because He knows that unfaithfulness kills us in our inner beings. My wife commited adultery against me and it was like my heart was ripped the hell out of me. I had given her three years of my life and a child and she took it all away so that she could pursue a relationship with another man. I am a human being with feelings and emotions and loves and fears and needs and all of those things were rejected by her. It was like being rejected by God Himself such is a woman's power when a man's heart is betrothed to her. A promise of Marraige is a spiritual promise. It betrothes the heart to unity with another, male and female to make one whole. In the wholeness there is no fear. In the faithfulness there is no fear.
In the wholeness we are like God. But for the relationship to not be tainted by man's ego, man must submit to God first and walk humbly with Him else he is bound to mistreat the daughter God loves. If the man sees God's love for His precious daughter first and the man has reverence for her Heavenly Father, he will always treat her with preciousness. The daughter of God should then submit to her husband without fear because she knows his will is good for her. This is the union that God intended for man and woman. This is why traditionally the husband to be askes the daughter's father for his daughter's hand in marraige. It is so that the man's heart is right with God before the union takes place. The girl's father will know whether the man is worthy of his daughter or not. His judgement is good for his daughter and if he approves of the humility the man has shown, he will hand over the daughter he has raised from birth.
I hope you see that I say these things out of love for you. :)

peace

c20
 
Xev said:
But to reach out and to comprehend the flesh of a wholly unknown person? That must take the bravery and patience of a saint.
Click to expand...
You mean one could see lots of braves and saints in brothels, i mean the customers.?

On the book:

Pretensions adviced by the books only works with dumbs. intelligent and really interested men would know the tricks played on them and may play along. Both will loose precious time of knowing and feeling each other.
 
Xev,

Perhaps I'm missing your point, but it seems to me that until you are comfortable in your own skin you will be uncomfortable sharing your skin with anyone else. Sure its natural to head trip about an upcoming date or pine the sexual paradoxes on a lonely night. But coming from a position of need rather than desire is not attractive in male or female(unless they're desperate as well).

If your hottie guy is responding to your advances, great go for it. If your hottie guy is not, let it go. There are a lot of hottie guys. This one isn't the end all be all of your sexual aspirations.

Do you expect to club him over the head and take him back to your place?
OK, I reread that you aren't being a stalker.

Do you plan on playing games for his attentions?
Then surely you will get games played on you in return.

It may be outside of your experience, but it is possible to have sincere and honest interactions with the opposite sex. In bed and out. Short and long term. Humans are not conquerers of the heart. The 'competition' hasn't begun when new meat presents itself.
I wish you luck, really. Old insults aside.
 
Xev said:
Since when does sex have to be with someone you love? With someone you even know?
How little creativity it must signify, to assume that sex can only be meaningful within the framework of romantic love. But you don't want to demean yourselves, you purveyers of that idea. So you fall in love at the snap of fingers, so that you may fall into bed just as fast.

I think casual sex must take more empathy than having sex with someone you love. To have sex with a person you care for is easy. But to reach out and to comprehend the flesh of a wholly unknown person? That must take the bravery and patience of a saint.
Click to expand...

Huh. You are seeing sex as if it were some kind of business.
The thing is that as soon as we begin to treat personal matters, esp. emotional matters, as business, they stop being fulfilling and meaningful to us, and we end up saying things like

Xev said:
I'm a competitive woman by nature. I like being the first and the best, I like to win and I like to master whatever I decide to do. And yet I cannot apply that drive to my interactions with men, while most seem to think I ought to.
Click to expand...

Western culture tells you to treat yourself as if you were a robot, and to treat other people as if they were robots. Guess why it doesn't work, and we end up feeling miserable? Because of some "ingrained puritan Christian morals"? No.
It's because we aren't robots.


Thou hast some nature in thee -- this is why you can't bear treating yourself as a robot.
 
Why would I want to attract "psycho-boy who only wants what he can't have"?
Click to expand...
So wait, now it's even harder for someone like me to score with you right?
Thats so hot.

How is sex a zero sum game? The idea of it being a form of conflict does resonate with me, but if I take pleasure from a man ought I see myself as the loser? And he takes pleasure from me, so how could I be considered the winner? All the advice, all my own strategizing, has been a way of trying to make me feel that I've defeated him by bedding him
Click to expand...
I never considered this.
How would a female feel like a winner after intercourse? They're just inherently being dominated. They're always the loser. "Cow girl style" quickly deteriorates into being held prisoner via a rod impaling them to a base. Being penetrated is just automatically a losery thing to be.
I'm competitive too and if I was a female I don't know how I would deal with sex, I'd almost certainly go without. Unless there was some guy who really deserved to defeat me. Hmmm, now I'm starting to see why girls generally aren't as keen to fuck anybody at the drop of a hat as guys are, and are so interested in actually "loving" the person attached to the penis.
They're like the kid who always loses the rough housing games and suggests a game of chess as a comprimise.

Is our society too competitive?
Click to expand...
Not nearly enough, as evidenced by the world around you.
It's more that our competitive natures have had their traditional behavioural routes dammed off, and been sent in funny, hard to deal with directions.
I probably shouldn't have the urge to "defeat" hard to get girls, but "you gotta defeat something". I'm not allowed to defeat my neighbour and expand my property line. But there's no law against boning prissy christians who come off as struggling to resist being boned.
I need that feeling because the animal I am naturally yearns for it, and so I get it where I can.
 
xev, counselor hope you feel better today and the hangover is under control if you have one.
 
robtex:
Xev is a brave Slavic lady and doesn't get hangovers that bad.

Dr. Lou Natic:
How would a female feel like a winner after intercourse? They're just inherently being dominated.
Click to expand...

I don't think so. I think we are raised to believe so, but it is all a vast scam to make us buy "The Rules"
Reverse the rules of that dialectic. Why do we think that way, why does that fear lurk somewhere in every woman's sexual interactions? It's not innate. Certainly our species does use sex as a means of expressing dominence, but that means nothing inherently about the act.

Being penetrated is just automatically a losery thing to be.
Click to expand...

That's not a rational construction.
Even if you do see it that way, there are so many other things one does besides penetration - I mean most women play 'Rules' esque games, but there's no human interaction in which one is automatically the loser.

I'm competitive too and if I was a female I don't know how I would deal with sex, I'd almost certainly go without.
Click to expand...

Until you started forming crushes on men you considered your own equal and questioning the whole charade.

I'm not allowed to defeat my neighbour and expand my property line. But there's no law against boning prissy christians who come off as struggling to resist being boned.
Click to expand...

That's what I said:

"We're so hungry for conflict and competition that we've lied it into what's perhaps the one place it shouldn't be. And that's the other thing. We have no control over our lives, our economy is shit, we sell our souls to perform joyless tasks - sorry but I'm drunk and I get like this - and we act like we have something because we play "the rules" "

You've domesticated man, you fence him in and you prohibit him to act upon his natural urges. For some of us it's fantasy, for others it's climbing the corporate ladder, it's ambition and greed. For others it's sex.
But that says nothing inherent about sex.

But then there's the other thing - it's frickin' fun!

One gets something out of sex, obviously, but one gets so much more out of it when one thinks of it as a conflict. It's "we're mature adults who are engaging in the rational pursuit of pleasure, now let me lick that gooey stuff off your face" versus "fucking eh, I've made him lose control"

But is that a real aspect of the world or is it an illusion fostered to give us the sense of conflict?

Insanely Elite:
Remedial English courses, my man. They can work wonders.
After that go back, try to read what I've very clearly stated - or better yet just tie a plastic bag over your head and go suffocate.

c20H25N3o:
Your being is a totally holy thing that men of God can see.
Click to expand...

I ought to close the blinds then.

The daughter of God should then submit to her husband without fear because she knows his will is good for her.
Click to expand...

It would be way hotter if she did so trembling in fear.
But see there you go, you've lied conflict and dominence into a relation in which there really is so little. Such are the instincts of an oppressed people, a people reacting to a hostile world rather than engaging it.
 
Xev said:
Has sex become so utterly mundane that we require a whole set of techniques to liven it up by putting it out of proportion?
Click to expand...

Sexual economics.

Everything is monetary.

This society fails it, hard.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top