|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 12 new of 36 responses total. |
vidar
|
|
response 25 of 36:
| 
Jul 8 21:39 UTC 2003 |
And some men try to train women too.
I'll be honest, I'm not good at expressing my emotions. I like
physical affection, but in a reserved setting. OTOH there are another
things I won't tell a potential partner yet, because when you're just
getting to know them those things don't need to be on the table yet.
|
jazz
|
|
response 26 of 36:
|
Jul 9 01:08 UTC 2003 |
It's not just women who try to train men and men who try to train
women. Every time two people interact, a version of the same game is played
out.
|
jules
|
|
response 27 of 36:
|
Jul 10 23:45 UTC 2003 |
i dont like thinking of a relationship as a game. i can see how you could,
but i really make every effort to just be myself and let my partner be
himself and just go with the flow. people make it so complicated and im not
sure it has to be.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 28 of 36:
|
Jul 11 01:43 UTC 2003 |
parents make it so complicated
|
michaela
|
|
response 29 of 36:
|
Jul 11 04:06 UTC 2003 |
Re #27 - complete and total agreement on this end. :)
|
jazz
|
|
response 30 of 36:
|
Jul 11 15:07 UTC 2003 |
The problem is, though, it's not a matter of one person or another
"making" things a game. Whether they do it consciously or unconsciously,
people wind up doing the same things, testing their partner to see how much
they can get away with and at what point they'll stand up for themselves.
When someone "isn't playing a game", they're just doing it unconsciously.
Unfortunately, the term "game" has two different connotations, one
from game theory, which deals with mapping complicated repetitive
interactions, and one from dating, where they have completely different
meanings. I'm not talking about being deliberately evil to someone you're
going out with.
|
jules
|
|
response 31 of 36:
|
Jul 11 15:30 UTC 2003 |
i think unconscious things like testing arent games, they are being human.
unconscious interaction is unavoidable. but learning about yourself and
tryi9ng to change those things so you can interact honestly is very
empowering. its only a game when 2 people play.
|
orinoco
|
|
response 32 of 36:
|
Jul 11 15:53 UTC 2003 |
I'd agree that the ideal is for both people to communicate honestly and
openly, etcetera etcetera. Realistically, that doesn't happen all the time,
and it's not going to happen all the time, even in the best of relationships.
I'd say trying to "train" your SO is a lot healthier than suffering in silence
when there's something you don't like, or being passive-aggressive about it,
or trying to get revenge. It's not ideal, but it's probably second-best.
|
jazz
|
|
response 33 of 36:
|
Jul 11 16:01 UTC 2003 |
I don't tend to think of someone playing a game knowing what they're
doing intentionally as being all that different from someone playing a game
and not knowing they're doing it. The effect is the same. The difference
is whether they're reasonable about what they're testing, and if they can
play it well or not.
|
jules
|
|
response 34 of 36:
|
Jul 11 19:31 UTC 2003 |
i think using the word train when refering to your mate is wrong. you train
a dog, not a mate. you try and be considerate of each others needs. you do
things to help each other, and when you need help, you ask for it. either you
will be compatable and communicate well, or you wont. if my man does a bunch
of things i just cant live with, and i ask him to change and he is unwilling,
than its time for a new man. one who is either more compatable with me, or
one willing to compromise. if you try and train a person like a dog, you are
asking for trouble.
|
tod
|
|
response 35 of 36:
|
Jul 17 22:05 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
otter
|
|
response 36 of 36:
|
Apr 11 22:27 UTC 2004 |
resp:30 Perhaps "dance" more closely expresses what you mean than
"game".
|