Finding True Love

Everyone is a 'player', which is a female term of convenience. Women play men, only they call it 'dating'.

It's only when the woman doesn't 'win' and get what she wants that the epithet 'player' is used in an attempt to emotionally abuse the man involved.

Women are more difficult to please, and hence are pleased less often. Thus, our feminacentric culture insures we hear lots of complaints from women that "men only want one thing", but never hear men's complaints about women wanting EVERYTHING.

Why would a man choose polygamy, when his market value is so low, that in 10 years, he's lucky to date one single woman? Of course only men who can have easily a lot of women at any time, would choose polygamy over security (by renouncing to liberty in favor of having one woman for sure). Only for men, who are very sure that they can have at any time women, polygamy is as secure as monogamy.
So now look at the market value distribution of those 28'000 men and you see, that only the very tiny, little minority of men with very high market value have voted for polygamy. If we would give the choice and secure the rest of the men with lower market value, that they can have the same live, they would all change their vote immediately.
An now, I actually join the comment above: We have the same market value distribution on the women's market. So most of those women can't have these high market value men and are then frustrated, when he leaves them for yet another one.

I pretty much agree with both previous comments--there is a common fallacy on any site where there are blogs about dating where women are generally assumed to be the virtuous party, and all relationship issues devolve from the wickedness of a subset of men who are "players." I agree with the poster who noted that a guy is only labeled a "player" after he elects to end a relationship with a woman--the same guy, should he elect to marry that girl would be held up as an example for other guys. Basically, Good Guys are the ones who do what women want, the Bad Boys are the men who do what they want. High-value women and high-value men face a different set of choices--they're not bad people just because they don't settle for the first person they meet and rather try and use their market power to get themselves a partner they feel is worthy. Why should men get the short end of the stick all the time? I think it's politically correct for bloggers to beat up on guys who date verses guys who grovel before the first women who will go out with them. It's unacceptable in the present climate to speculate about what women might be doing to contribute to their own difficulties. In my experience, women actually tend to be quite a bit less direct and more manipulative and dishonest in dating than most men are. For a guy to not call a woman back to to stand a girl up makes him a "Bad Boy"--but the same behavior from a women is portrayed as the woman simply getting rid of a defective man. I think both genders could benefit by women being able to stand a bit of criticism too--they seem eager to dish it out, but they refuse to acknowledge that they too might have flaws or might not behave honorably.

but why is it that men want to be a "man of honor?" To be as sexessful as possible?

These results don't surprise me. Do they surprise you? My perception of men has completely changed since I started swinging. I've interviewed more than 60 fellows, from ages 29 to 62 over the past few months to be my partner. They are all seeking deeper intimacy, but not in the words that women tend to use. Other than a few turkeys, which is to be expected any time someone is seeking some sort of "partner," I didn't find any of them to be a so-called "player." One could suggest that men who are experienced swingers - are different - since they aren't of the jealous variety and love to share their partners. I think not. What I've learned is that talking candidly about sex and intimacy when you first meet someone can be extremely healthy. Only this rarely happens in dating scenarios. There's a dance - or two or three - that's played instead. When I interview men to swing with me, there is no dance on either side - and let me tell you, it makes for richer dialogue and more meaningful relationships. These men are honorable. Interesting, eh?

These results don't surprise me. Do they surprise you? My perception of men has completely changed since I started swinging. I've interviewed more than 60 fellows, from ages 29 to 62 over the past few months to be my partner. They are all seeking deeper intimacy, but not in the words that women tend to use. Other than a few turkeys, which is to be expected any time someone is seeking some sort of "partner," I didn't find any of them to be a so-called "player." One could suggest that men who are experienced swingers - are different - since they aren't of the jealous variety and love to share their partners. I think not. What I've learned is that talking candidly about sex and intimacy when you first meet someone can be extremely healthy. Only this rarely happens in dating scenarios. There's a dance - or two or three - that's played instead. When I interview men to swing with me, there is no dance on either side - and let me tell you, it makes for richer dialogue and more meaningful relationships. These men are honorable. Interesting, eh?