Games people play

I was wrong. All along I’ve thought that being open/honest and not playing games were the same thing. But they’re not, I’ve found. (And yes, I know, this’ll be painfully obvious for most people. Bear with me. ;))

You see, playing games means pretending not to be interested when you are, if only so that the other person will be more interested, and other such nonsense. I’m still adamantly against this. It oozes out of novels, and that’s exactly where it should stay — with no leakage into real life.

Openness, on the other hand, is different. I used to think straight-up honesty (telling all your feelings, that is) was best, and I was right, but I was also wrong. Openness is best after you’ve already built a foundation. But not before.

In an ideal world, of course, openness would be a mere exchange of information as to the current state of one’s feelings — like a report on the weather. “I like you.” “I kind of like you, but I’m kind of not sure yet, so let’s hold off on making a decision for now.” “I don’t like you.” “Please drop off the face of the planet.” Matter-of-fact expressions of how you’re feeling, that sort of thing.

There’s a kink in this plan, however, and it’s one that I didn’t realize until recent conversations with some female friends about all this. (And here all along you thought I was making all of this stuff up right out of my little ol’ head. ;))

It’s called the observer’s paradox.

You see, expressing interest actually does alter things, either for better or for worse. It masquerades as a simple query for information — “I like you; do you like me?” — but by virtue of its very existence it warps the space-time continuum and who knows what’s going to happen after that.

(Yeah, I think I’m having a little too much fun with this. :P)

So anyway, why does it change the course of events? It’s because language is too powerful. It’s too intense, like looking straight into the sun. Language is alive.

Actions, on the other hand, are more subtle and not quite so scary. (I’m talking about things like flirting and continuing to ask someone out (or continuing to say yes), not flat-out kissing someone or anything else like that.) I still don’t understand all the ramifications of this, but it makes sense, and it fits with my own observations. This is science, folks. ;)

And so, with a QED chalked up on the blackboard of experience, I’ve learned this lesson: don’t open the oven. Or your mouth. It’s the whole show-don’t-tell thing. Exposition is the bane of so many existences I can hardly count them all.

Yes, information is good. Yes, it’s nice to know for sure whether someone’s sending you signs or not. Yes, you risk less if you already know the other person is interested. But straight-up asking someone isn’t the kosher way to do this. It breaks the rules — and not the rules of the game, because this isn’t a game. It’s just the way things are.

And I thought this post was going to be about games like Bohnanza or Ticket to Ride.

I agree with you; Actions are more subtle and often more meaningful than words, and usually leave room for more interpretation. That’s hard to deal with for over-analyzers who prefer “open and honest” communication (read “DTR after one or two dates”).

Admittedly, I was always more on the “open and honest” end of the continuum, though I didn’t mind a little ambiguity for the first few dates. Janssen was the same way, so it worked well.

I’m the same way as Bart and Janssen. Perhaps it’s because I’m a very language-oriented person, but I would rather have a fellow state his intentions, because trying to guess his intentions from subtle, ambiguous actions makes me really nervous. I’ve had experiences with boys being too open–DTR after every other date–but for the most part I’ve found openness appealing. For example, one time a boy I knew sent me an e-mail asking me out a year after he’d told me he wasn’t going to ask me out any more. I wrote back a carefully-worded reply, essentially saying: I’m really confused by your actions and would appreciate some clarification as to what your intentions are. I was shocked when he wrote a very frank, honest reply, explaining why he’d reconsidered dating me. It was utterly disarming, and I decided to go out with him, though my first inclination had been to not do so.

I think the problem comes in trying to apply general principles to individuals. You never know how someone is going to react. Also, girls will react differently depending on the situation. For example, most girls feel much more comfortable with openness when they’re already interested in the fellow. Less so when they’re not. So, it’s tricky.

Timing is everything.

Bart: I’m definitely an over-analyzer who’s had a habit of trying to DTR after one or two dates. Er, amend that: I was. But I’ve learned. :) (I think I just need to accept that ambiguity is okay, even exciting in a mysterious sort of way. Or something like that. ;))

Katherine: Personally, I can handle open and honest just fine, but most people seem to be uncomfortable with that. That’s not necessarily a bad thing — it’s just different, that’s all. But I’m glad to find that I’m not alone in being more for open and honest. :)

sixline: Also very true. It’s too bad my internal chronometer got dashed to pieces when they installed the pacemaker… :P

All well and good. Here’s the biggest problem with any of the aforementioned issues–people such as myself. I can live perfectly well without this DTR business, the problem is that the females in question grow tired of my not making an effort to define things, and usually don’t make any efforts to push me on the matter until they have decided it is too late. Maybe I just have extraordinarily bad luck (as has been suggested by a number of my friends), but the pattern seems to hold. Anyways, I try to correct that, and it’s always “too much too soon.” So basically, with the girls who are interested in me I almost never think about the DTR thing, and by so doing drive them away. And the ones who are marginally interested I tend to do the DTR thing and drive them away too. But enough on me.

As far as actions go, and your theory of “Playing Games,” consider this: by asking someone on a date, your interest in them is implied, especially if you continue to ask them out (as you mentioned). The problem that guys run into all too often though is that we trip all over ourselves in trying to express our interest, and overwhelm the girls in question. A lot of this is taken care of if we follow the guidance we received early on to date many people until we find someone we want to date exclusively–then things can tend to progress naturally, and the relationship will be defined in due course. For those of us who dislike the very notion of dating more than one person (me especially), that’s where the challenge lies–overcoming our own high interest level so that it does not get in the way of her actually starting to like you.

Anyhoo, I agree though–in a perfect world, it would be open and honest–unfortunately, well, we all know how it is :).

Joe, You nailed it on the head!!!

“if we follow the guidance we received early on to date many people until we find someone we want to date exclusively–then things can tend to progress naturally, and the relationship will be defined in due course.”

I like Granny Smith and Braburn apples. I can’t stand the mushy texture of the Delicious variety and I far prefer Elberta peaches to apples, but raspberries are my favorite fruit. Now if I had to choose one and only fruit to eat for all eternity, I think that I would take the time to visit more than the taste of the fruits because nutrition and shelf life are also critical elements to consider.

Elder Dallin H. Oaks gave a talk “Push Back Against the World” that can be found at this link: http://speeches.byu.edu/rss/podcast2.xml where he refers to the dating guidelines Joe mentioned in the preface to his talk. Elder Oaks also gave some interesting counsel to young women in regards to expectations when they are asked on a date. “To go on a date is not to imply a continuing commitment…Dating was an opportunity to get to know one another better and not an immediate commitment to a long term relationship or marriage… Simple and more frequent dates allow both men and women to shop around in a way that allows extensive evaluation of the prospects.”

There’s also Elder Oaks’ talk from the June 2006 Ensign, excerpted from his CES talk a few months earlier:

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=ca5be2270ed6c010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1

Yeah! You’re learning!

Joe: The proverbial catch-22. :) But I agree — there’s a delicate balance that has to be held up, and too much or too little on either side will send things cascading down to the floor. If only it were easier to find that balance…

Janet: I agree that we need to “shop around,” certainly. My post was more from the perspective of after you’ve shopped around enough to know what you want, though. :)

David: Oh, yes, I’m learning. Sometimes I wish I could get it all at once instead of this line-upon-line business, but Father knows best. :)