Falling in love vs being a player
Back to the Table of Contents
The question of falling in love is tricky for everyone and the PUA is no exception. He is however less likely to develop a pathetic and desperate fixation commonly associated with falling in love. It can happen, but its effects (jealousy, depression etc) are far less severe. They just don't have any room to develop and aren't given enough time to reach their full potential.
The word polyamorous has been coined which is probably the closest match to describing how a seducer is in love - he is simply in love with many women at once. Being in love with one girl at a time, especially if it is a one-sided feeling, has you fixated on this one girl, thus giving off vibes of desperation, paralysing your ability to think clearly, feeling constant fear of being rejected and lowering your self-esteem when your feelings are not returned - all of which will repel a girl even further away from you thus forming a self-reinforcing downward cycle. Being in love with many girls at a time (or at least interested in, if they've not yet given you cause to reward them by showing any deeper affection and making them your girlfriends:) has the effect of letting you keep your thinking more coherent, remain confident because you acknowledge and understand that there are more girls than just this "one", all the while being able to guide her feelings for you - to match and even exceed the intensity of feelings of those being in love if you choose to. And your confidence and coolness about these matters attracts girls (as opposed to desperation, which repels) thus forming another, but this time a positive self-reinforcing cycle.
Some say that the ideal is still a one-on-one relationship full of complete and unconditional love. I agree with the latter part of the assertion - complete and unconditional love truly is an ideal. But I have to disagree with the assertion of one-on-one situations being the ideal. The biggest argument in support of the one-on-one ideal is that a family needs both a mother and a father for the children to be able to model the world through them and be supported financially. Should one of the parents be led astray by some parallel relationships, this could end up with the family being broken. So to protect the integrity of the family, all relationships should be strictly one-on-one and no polyamorous relations are to be allowed. But inherently it shows the weakness of the one-on-one ideal - for it is exactly this very same ideal that forces one of the parents to choose, which on of his/her relations to make that ideal one-on-one relationship, and should he/she opt for a new one, the old one will be broken, and thus will also be broken the very values which the one-on-one ideal was supposed to protect.
Ok, this example was the extreme of the extreme - marriage, family, children - something that most of you probably don't want to be associated with quite yet:) Notice however how the exclusivity of love ideal fell fat on its face in it:)
The other argument is, that the exclusivity of someone's affection is supposed to give added value to that affection. The truth is - yes, exclusivity will bring added value… for a while, but soon enough, this added value will subside into routine and being taken for granted and will eventually degenerate into boredom. Whereas non-exclusivity can help keep things fresh for a very long time indeed:)
A one-on-one relationship is actually more a matter of comfort and traditions - after years of fruitless pursuits and painful rejections, you've finally found someone you like and someone who likes you back, a companion, with whom you can have your needs of giving and receiving love fulfilled. You sigh a sigh of relief and settle in. You're an AFC headed for marriage:)
One more argument defending the one-on-one relationship is that love in its nature is exclusive and you cannot for example be in love with two different people at a time. (I do admit, that loving and being in love with somebody are not quite the same, but neither do the proponents of the one-on-one relationship seem to notice a difference - they force their standards upon everybody). This is one truly weak argument and can only derive from either such people's lack of experience, denial of having felt that way or simple inability to feel that way, which they then extend and attribute to the whole world. But sooner or later even they shall have to acknowledge the possibility of being able to share love with many people, at least to some degree. Or do they love their parents just one at a time? Or do you plan on loving their children one at a time? Of course not. They feel love for all of them - maybe more for some and less for others, but definitely not "only one at a time". They might of course argue, that that kind of love is "different", but I'd say its' different on just three aspects - more empathy, less intimacy and no choice in who the objects of your affection are. Other than that, it is love nevertheless.
I want to stress, that there's nothing wrong with monogamous relationships, falling in love in the classic, desperate way or getting married. Too often however people do these things because they don't think they have a choice. But then, when it turns out, they could actually have had a choice and there were even better options available, they close their eyes and start preaching on the benefits and superiority of their choice over other options and the supreme and divine wisdom of the choice they actually made in ignorance.
So either seduce to your heart's content or fall in love and get married or become a munk to lead a life of celibacy - just know your options and make a knowledgeable choice:)
As for why I even bothered to discuss the relative benefits of being a "player". Life's too short - not that you should taste as many girls as you can, but at least you shouldn't waste your time with the girls you can't have. Being a player let's you see that and move on, being an AFC however has you banging your head against the wall until one of them crumbles (well… walls have been known to crumble from time to time too:).
An excerpt from "Dumb and Dumber" to illustrate this:)
Jim Carrey: So… waddaya think? What are the chances of the two of us being together?
Jim Carrey: One in two? One in three? …One in five?
HB: Um… rather… one in a million.
Jim Carrey: (with a big smile:) So… ya'r saying…. THERE'S A CHANCE:)))????
Managing many relationships at once
Comment / Contribute / Update