How exactly do players ruin it for the good guys?

[Bumsniff]

Can someone please tell me exactly how players ruin it for the good guys? Are we to believe women have no control over themselves? All the times they get to flirt, talk to, interact and meet people in their lives and we are supposed to believe women are completely clueless and continuously let the players ruin it for the good guys? Why do they keep going after players as if they’ve developed absolutely no social intelligence in their lives till it’s “too late”? Then the good guy is supposed to come along and just accept the person for the way they are regardless of how many unaccountable mistakes they’ve made and like it?

 

[yuppaz]

They start seeing all good looking guys with confidence as players & dismiss them out of hand. They begin to lack the ability to connect or be vulnerable. They lose self esteem. Probably lots of other negative things as well.

 

[zekko]

I agree with the OP in a way, in that it isn't necessarily so. However, I suppose it could be similar to how slvts, b!tches, and BPDs spoil it for the good girls. By the time a guy meets a nice girl, he is so jaded from dealing with the cvnts that he has difficulty trusting her (not that you should ever fully trust a girl).

Another thing with players is that they have more experience, so they often times scoop up the girl before the "normal" guys work up the nerve or figure out how to approach. Women are generally passive in that they wait for the male to make the defining move, even if they do drop a lot of hints.

 

[Stagger Lee]

I agree that women are responsible for their own actions and behavior. And any damage they have is mostly from their own making-choosing unhealthy relationships over healthier ones.


But how guys who are players really ruin it for guys who are not players is that they monopolize women by dating/sexing multiple women simulataneously. Approx. 20% of the most attractive, successful men can tie up most all the women and create a hypercompetitive dating market for other men. If these men were pairing up with the most suitable females, there would be a much higher effective supply of available women and a lower supply of men.

Imagine if the roles were reversed. If the best looking most desirable women were willing to date and have sex with most guys, would the less good looking women who only want the most quality guy have much of a chance?

The promiscuois culture really just empowers female hypergamy. However, this is still just as much women's fault as men's. For example, a lot of women will have a ONS and move on to the next guy as much as men do it.

Plenty of men want to be players, and plenty of women want players. Both are responsible. But who's more responsible? I tend to think women are since they are the ones being hypergamy.

 

[nismo-4]

I agree that women are responsible for their own actions and behavior. And any damage they have is mostly from their own making-choosing unhealthy relationships over healthier ones.

I can't find a woman who wants a healthy relationship these days.

But how guys who are players really ruin it for guys who are not players is that they monopolize women by dating/sexing multiple women simulataneously. Approx. 20% of the most attractive, successful men can tie up most all the women and create a hypercompetitive dating market for other men. If these men were pairing up with the most suitable females, there would be a much higher effective supply of available women and a lower supply of men.

Yep. All women want a muscular millionaire. The male penis has no social value at all and men don't control the sex market at all. Most women are holding out for a top male, and the fact that desire/ attraction can't be negotiated doesn't help.

Imagine if the roles were reversed. If the best looking most desirable women were willing to date and have sex with most guys, would the less good looking women who only want the most quality guy have much of a chance?

Hell no.

The promiscuois culture really just empowers female hypergamy. However, this is still just as much women's fault as men's. For example, a lot of women will have a ONS and move on to the next guy as much as men do it.

Women have a better chance of a ONS than men do.

Plenty of men want to be players, and plenty of women want players. Both are responsible. But who's more responsible? I tend to think women are since they are the ones being hypergamy.

Women can choose how they want to feel. Plenty of men want to be players, so the PUA movement got very widespread. And it ain't stopping anytime soon.

Women damn near own the dating game, and the top 10% of men isn't sharing anytime soon. What's the bottom 90% to do? Get a more fit body and bank.

 

[Stagger Lee]

Here's the thing, there are equal numbers of men and women. Men are more available to women than women are available to men. Men admit looks are important in a woman yet rate most women as at least average looking and will date average and even below average women. Women deny looks are important yet believe less than 20% of men are better looking than average and are unavailable to men who are not above average. Further, women claim they want a relationship.

Clearly if women wanted relationships and looks didn't matter much to them, then most all men would easily find a woman who is interested in him. You can only concluded that the top 20% of men (who could pair off with the most desirable woman) excercising their multi-women monopolizing ability and that most all women excercising their hypergamy tendencies and ability, are to blame for the rest of the guys difficulty with women. This is the inevitable result in a culture that tolerates promiscouity and allows women to live independently without being in a relationship with a man.

 

[Mike32ct]

Plus the whole concept of being "single" is different today.

Years ago, a single girl didn't have a guy, so she dreamed of finding a decent boyfriend.

Today, the "single" girl holds out for Mr. Perfect because she Fs her player FWB on the side for her physical needs and has orbiters and gay friends for her emotional needs. What does she need a relationship for (unless the guy is exceptional)? So she is in NO hurry for a relationship.

She can wait for dinner because there are several open bags of junk food in the cabinet.

 

[nismo-4]

Here's the thing, there are equal numbers of men and women.

There's more men than women in the world IMO.

Men are more available to women than women are available to men.

That's because of these social stigmas (pressure) for a man to get a woman, and a man is desirable as long as he has at least ONE woman. Men also don't have the choosing power that women have.

Men admit looks are important in a woman yet rate most women as at least average looking and will date average and even below average women.

Any love is better than no love. Most men are just glad to have a woman because they know they've had lots of trouble with women. Men want a woman to love them for them, not their bank accounts. And you have to be good IN THE NOW, not the future.

Women deny looks are important yet believe less than 20% of men are better looking than average and are unavailable to men who are not above average. Further, women claim they want a relationship.

About the bold; What women do and say are lightyears apart. Women think that we hold the relationship card. That's laughable at best and useless at worst because the relationship card that we hold has fine print on it which reads "Only works if the woman chooses you." Women keep getting deluded into thinking a top 10% male will discover them if they just hold out a little longer and take it slow. Damn romance novels and the media.

Clearly if women wanted relationships and looks didn't matter much to them, then most all men would easily find a woman who is interested in him. You can only concluded that the top 20% of men (who could pair off with the most desirable woman) excercising their multi-women monopolizing ability and that most all women excercising their hypergamy tendencies and ability, are to blame for the rest of the guys difficulty with women. This is the inevitable result in a culture that tolerates promiscouity and allows women to live independently without being in a relationship with a man.

Women even past age 60 think they're entitled to a muscular millionaire! A woman would rather stay single than hook up with an average working man trying to come up. Why? Because getting seen with an average guy who's not a millionaire is a major blow to a woman's ego. Also, she can fantasize about a top 10% guy taking her for himself.

Women have always had the sex card, and now they have the relationship card. Women don't kill to have a man, unless he's a top 10% guy, and even then he's just on the woman's level. All women have options. All women have orbiters and backups, so they're never short of a good time. Most men don't have that luxury. Why?

Because men chase and women choose.

 

[zekko]

But how guys who are players really ruin it for guys who are not players is that they monopolize women by dating/sexing multiple women simulataneously. Approx. 20% of the most attractive, successful men can tie up most all the women and create a hypercompetitive dating market for other men.

You're right, but it should be pointed out that a "player" is not necessarily a "high value male", and a "high value male" is not necessarily a "player". Despite what SoSuave might have you believe.

The male penis has no social value at all

Why should it? Most any guy would jump at the chance to have sex with an attractive, or even halfway decent looking woman.

Today, the "single" girl holds out for Mr. Perfect because she Fs her player FWB on the side for her physical needs and has orbiters and gay friends for her emotional needs. What does she need a relationship for (unless the guy is exceptional)? So she is in NO hurry for a relationship.

Back in the day, women relied on men to provide for and protect them. Now the state will do this for them, or they can get a job and provide for themselves.

 

[TillTheEndOfTime]

The answer is simple. Players are really losers. They offer little to society other than their own egos.

Players artificially drive up the self-perceived worth that a woman has attributed to herself. The woman thinks that because she is getting approached, that she has high value. The reality is that she is little more than a prize in a juvenile game that is being played. Outside of sex, the player sees no value in her as a woman. She falsely applies her self-perceived worth to the general male population.

The result is that her ego and self-perceived worth is driven so high, that the men who are in her own league are not good enough for her. She is a 6 and she thinks that she is a 9. Many great guys pass her by and she doesn't look back, thinking that another better guy will always come along. But he never does.

Both the man and woman end up losing.

 

[TillTheEndOfTime]

Here's the thing, there are equal numbers of men and women. Men are more available to women than women are available to men. Men admit looks are important in a woman yet rate most women as at least average looking and will date average and even below average women. Women deny looks are important yet believe less than 20% of men are better looking than average and are unavailable to men who are not above average. Further, women claim they want a relationship.

Clearly if women wanted relationships and looks didn't matter much to them, then most all men would easily find a woman who is interested in him. You can only concluded that the top 20% of men (who could pair off with the most desirable woman) excercising their multi-women monopolizing ability and that most all women excercising their hypergamy tendencies and ability, are to blame for the rest of the guys difficulty with women. This is the inevitable result in a culture that tolerates promiscouity and allows women to live independently without being in a relationship with a man.

This 20% figure comes from an OKcupid blog, of which I was one of the first to quote on SoSuave. Women are delusional as you suggest when it comes to looks. However, the world offline is not quite as bad as the world online.

The principle is that there is a highly concentrated population of delusional women who congregate online. Yes, they obviously exist offline as well. However, on a percentage basis there are far, far more of them online. And that is precisely why they are online. Because they are delusional.

Men need to understand this point before trying to look for anything other than sex online.

 

[floydb25]

Two things:

1. Everyone has a choice, and knows what theyre doing. They just dont want to accept any responsibility, or be in the wrong. Mostly so they arent PERCEIVED BY OTHERS as being bad. So, they blame everyone else - when they are the shallow, conceited, obsessed with status and drama ones. They know when someone is bad, but dont care because theyre hot, it raises their status, they think theyre a special cookie who can change them,(because theyre really that awesome), they love drama and uncertainty, they want who everyone else wants, etc.

And in fact, they PURPOSELY seek out these people - for these very reasons. Then they complain and act innocent when things go wrong. Meanwhile, they make up excuses to AVOID decent folks. That is, if they dont USE them instead.

Its not like they have NO options whatsoever, and are sitting at home lonely. Many of them are actually quite spoiled, stuck up, high maintanence, entitled, etc, and have back-up plans, boyfiends, orbiters, etc.. They also arent trying to figure out how genuine and awesome you are - in regards to keeping you around and waiting "out of fear". Laugh.

2. People only hate when bad things happen to them, but will gladly do the same things to others - typically AS its happening to them. Hypocisy and double standards are very common. As is selfishness. Of course, many will play the victim "acting out of self-defense" to justify all the horrible things they are doing to others. Nah, they only care about themselves, and attract what they are.

These reasons are why you should never sympathize with people. There is no such thing as a victim., and you will find first-hand just how innocent they arent. Most people only complain when things dont go their way, and they arent this passive, submissive, naive, oblivious, perfectly harmless little angel they want you to BELIEVE they are. They just play the role of a perma-victim really well, so as to maintain their "good" person image. That way, nothing is ever their fault.

This is all just another form of their stuck up, conceited, better than you nature. Eg: theyre so awesome and nice - everyone else is shallow and evil. All of this as theyre only caring about themselves, and complaining about the things happening to them. Not to mention, being delusional about who they are, and what they deserve.

So yea, dont sympathize, believe, assume, excuse, justify, or view anyone as victimized, owed or entitled. Theyll do that on their own. You just pay attention to the facts, and focus on who they are. Theyre only telling you one side of the story - from their perspective, as it happened to them. Fat chance of finding any truth in that. People arent as innocent and genuine as they want you to believe.