This is Not the Boogle Memorial Dating Advice/Tips Thread, No

From what I can determine, "unnatural" game is made up of routines and patterns - studied ways to behave to get what you want out of people, that is focused on performance, not meaning. You may or may not mean what you say; it doesn't matter. It's just a game. As one PUA puts it, "None of us are who we are in the game. We're all players."

Spoiler:

I don't relate to women like that because I've had to construct my social skill from scratch - Style and Mystery relate pretty well with men, they just had trouble with women. I had trouble with everybody, so I had to make a generalized solution that works for as many situations as possible. I have limited instinctive social intelligence; it's not one of the spheres where I have a strong innate intelligence. I still can't tell all the time how I come across. It's an ongoing process.

It just so happened that in my locality, women and men aren't segregated by gender socially, so I could create a common social algorithm that worked with women and men equally, with various situational modifiers. I got rid of my "approach anxiety" by roundly ignoring it. I was done with it controlling my life. If my voice shook while I was speaking, I'd deal with it when and where that became a problem. Oddly enough, it never did.

In many ways, I relate to people like a PUA - I do better with prepared material rather than extemporaneous speaking; but to me it's not a game. There's a barrier between me and the world. If a gulf that has been hard for me to cross. I have had to build the bridge so I could get across, but what comes across is me, not a fake construct.

It's plausible that I'm simply intellectually stunted in terms of social intellect by nature, but have been blessed with just enough logical procedural intelligence to overcome it methodically. I have great sympathy for people who can't bridge social gaps because of where I was.

Good lord. Personal sob story; mainly of interest only to DanB. Nothing to see here!

LarryC wrote:

From what I can determine, "unnatural" game is made up of routines and patterns - studied ways to behave to get what you want out of people, that is focused on performance, not meaning. You may or may not mean what you say; it doesn't matter. It's just a game. As one PUA puts it, "None of us are who we are in the game. We're all players."

A right I see where you're coming from. I think there is natural and unnatural game, i.e. using routines, patterns etc... or not. And then confusingly also the notion of natural and unnatural people, people who the skills came without work and those who have to work at it. I think? Maybe not.

Good lord. Personal sob story; mainly of interest only to DanB. Nothing to see here! :)

A reply:

Spoiler:

I possibly flatter myself that I'm reasonably personable and smart enough. I'm not ever going to win any awards in the looks department. I grew up in a family with plenty smart women and have never had a problem relating to women nor maintaining female friendships. I've always had a pretty rock solid self-esteem. Yet I got to be an adult with literally no inkling of how romantic/sexual attraction works, a genuine utter obliviousness. Not even enough idea to know where to start.

What transformation I made came about because a friend said that he'd read The Game, that I should read it and then read anything by Wayne Elise I could find. So I did. I can't say that it was some Damascian revelation. But just the insight that these things could actually be learnt and a bit of a road map for doing so was enough to help me change some incorrect assumptions I didn't know I had and alter some bits of behaviour. That led to a particularly "successful" summer and a couple of long term things since (current one: totally amazingly, awesome). Once it turned out to be a success I really didn't have any further need for that community. Especially as the majority (although by no means all of it) is really heading in a very, very unpleasant misogynistic direction. I dipped in until I learnt the information I needed but I never really "took part" in the community. I never learnt any routines, I've never cruised bars or meat-markets. I think that whole aspect is really, really wrong headed and it hides from view what is actually important about attraction (confidence mainly) and makes people think the routines are the thing.

Just to pull one bit out of the spoiler tag there:

But just the insight that these things could actually be learnt and a bit of a road map for doing so was enough to help me change some incorrect assumptions I didn't know I had and alter some bits of behaviour.

That lines up with my experience too. There's also some stuff in The Game that can be a useful crutch if you're a bit clueless - particularly along the lines of random comversation starters and ways to fake confidence until you actually become confident - but I've noticed most of the guys I know who adopted things from that book (myself included) kept just a few of the basic parts and quickly jettisoned all the misogynistic/sociopathic stuff.

My gut feeling is that a lot of the techniques and so on are based on a sensible enough core that then gets extrapolated into something unpleasant: for example, the fairly simple observation that you're not going to have much luck joining a mob of guys trying to hit on a gorgeous woman who's been fighting off people all night. The PUA takeaway message is that her friends will be so fed up with not getting attention that they'll be more receptive to flirting, which will then cause the original girl to be challenged by the fact that you're not talking to her, etc. etc. The (IMO) appropriate response is to leave her alone and look for someone who might actually be interested. Similarly with negging: the key point that fawning over someone is not attractive is perfectly reasonable, but that doesn't mean you should go to the opposite extreme of attempting to undermine their self-esteem.

Sonicator:

That's an interesting take on that sort of phenomenon/activity. My own take on it would be that a woman who's being hit on constantly for the entire night is just tired of being treated like an object. She's out there to make a connection, so provide that connection and she'll jump right on it. After all, that's the entire point of her going out and being there. "Day game" is different, because people out and about during the day usually have goals other than hooking up.

It's important to remember that "negging" is not an insult. You're not looking to insult the person. You can insult someone as a means of eliciting a powerful emotion, and then try to turn that emotion around, but that's quite risky. "Negging" is a back-handed compliment. It's a praise and an insult in one. More basically, it's just a neutral comment that shows that you're paying attention on a personal level. Negs that don't acknowledge personhood don't strike me as being very effective. It's the acknowledgement of personhood that's powerful. A straight praise that does the same thing is probably stronger.

Social proof, however, is a solid concept. Getting accepted by or coming in with a group provides a strong affirmation of your worth as a colleague. This is true in multiple spheres of human interaction. I suspect that that's why speakers get introduced with their membership in various professional organizations. Flirting with members of a group that have not seen as much action works on several levels; social proof is one of them. Whether or not the target is challenged by your not paying attention to her, getting accepted by her group gives you strong social proof.

The way I see it, engaging the Obstacle and Negging accomplishes these points:

1. Gives you social proof
2. Distinguishes you from the pack
3. Fakes personable interest
4. Fakes confidence

It's effective up to a point, but several factors have to be in place for maximum impact.

Koz wrote:

Typically in my failed relationships I am generally the one that is more attached and the one who keeps hoping the girl is into me. Well for the first time I find the roles reversed. I'm dating this girl who I do like and have a good time with, but there's just something... missing. I don't know what it is, but I find myself not thinking about her much or not really caring if or when I see her again. I was hoping that perhaps we might get closer as we go out more and open up (we're both pretty introverted), but it's been 4 or 5 dates and I still feel the same way: I'm just not that into her. It sucks. I wish I could fix it because I really would like to be in a committed relationship, but I just don't think it's going to happen with this one. So frustrating, especially because I know exactly how she feels.

You know, I'm going to swim against the tide on this one: I don't think there's anything wrong with continuing to see her casually while keeping your options open on the possibility of meeting someone else who would be a better long-term match, as long as you're up front about the fact that you don't see yourself getting exclusive with her any time soon. (I'm assuming that you haven't already had the exclusivity talk; it's only been three weeks, right?)

Now, if SHE finds that unacceptable and chooses to break it off with you, that's a perfectly valid decision for her to make, but I wouldn't make that decision for her. You enjoy this girl's company, so why not continue to date her on a casual basis, and date other people too? Play the field a little, for crying out loud.

Hey, that's what I said! It didn't come across that way, did it?

LarryC wrote:

Hey, that's what I said! It didn't come across that way, did it? :(

You did, the conversation just kind of went in a different direction after that.

I was making my suggestion assuming the relationship had matured past a few months. At three weeks, it's really hard to say.

No, we weren't exclusive or anything, it was still very early in the relationship. I appreciate the suggestion but I'm not really a casual dater and I'm not really looking to casually date (I'd rather just be single).

Anyways, the deed is done. I feel bad about it but I think it was ultimately the right decision.

originally posted by 4xis.black in the Feminism thread

It's 5:30 am here. I have thoughts. I, uh, apologize in advance.

First, an ethical question. Suppose you detect that another person is offering you some mundane favour in the unspoken hope of initiating a romantic relationship with you. If you accept the favour knowing full-well the underlying intent, yet have no reciprocal romantic intent towards that person, does this mean you are using him or her? If we replace 'romance' with 'wants to use you as a sex object', does that change the ethical situation?

Second, a related question. Suppose you can locate other people who would be willing to perform mundane favours for you in the unspoken hope of initiating a romantic relationship with you. If you solicit such a favour knowing full-well the underlying intent, yet have no reciprocal romantic intent towards that person, whose actions (if anyone's) are more predatory? What if we replace 'romance' with 'wants to use you as a sex object'?

One interesting facet of the problem is that a 'favour' is not a transaction, but it has transaction-like properties. In accepting a favour you might choose to incur a sort of voluntary debt; you don't owe that person anything, but it might be important to your belief system (and may actually be ethically imperative) that you do "owe them one". And of course, if you think that the other person thinks that you ought to "owe them one", it's ethically inadvisable to accept a favour unless you intend to provide what they think you ought to provide (or else you are knowingly misleading them for personal gain).

Another interesting facet is the question of whether favours 'stack', to use a gaming term. I suppose the archetypal Nice Guy believes that they stack linearly and unlimitedly; that x minutes spent listening to relationship problems equals y rides to the concert equals 1 ___job. (This is the ideologically-complete case; real-world Nice Guys, like all people, have weird fractured belief systems and double standards that they apply to others but not themselves, etc....) I don't really know if this is an ideal way or even a good way to define a system for exchanging favours, but it doesn't matter so much in the case of these questions: It is instead about what that favour-giver believes is happening, how much you know about those beliefs, and how you respond given this knowledge.

It seems that the Nice Guy strategy involves piling up minor favours in an effort to 'exchange' them for sex, but disguising this intention so that the favours will not be refused. Is the disguise effective, though?

It felt more on-topic to answer it here.

Devolving relationships into transactions is a sound way to deal with the landscape. I think where "Nice Guys" fail is that they fail to demarcate a qualitative difference between particular kinds of favors. A nice cake on your boss' birthday is not going to translate into a promotion - that demands exemplary performance at work. The cake is just PR - the product itself has to be good since the client interacts with it on a daily basis.

In terms of romantic or sexual relationships, doing polite things for women doesn't translate into sexual favors. Those are just PR. The set of activities or demonstrations necessary to create attraction are entirely separate from those with mark you out as a decent person. "Nice Guys" don't get that.

LarryC wrote:

In terms of romantic or sexual relationships, doing polite things for women doesn't translate into sexual favors. Those are just PR. The set of activities or demonstrations necessary to create attraction (sometimes just happen to overlap with, but) are entirely separate from those with mark you out as a decent person. "Nice Guys" don't get that.

+eleventy billion

It depends on the persons involved of course. Some people think that opening doors for them is fantastically sexy and attractive. I've never met anyone like that, though.

I actually had to speak with a friend of mine that is, in some ways, your stereotypically "Nice Guy" recently. It has double the trouble because, like me, he is a Christian guy firm in his beliefs, though he is very serious about the "no sex until marriage" thing. I'm not sure where I stand on that, personally, and should probably figure it out.

The past few months we've been hanging out on Sundays at a pub for Eagles games, though we've mostly spent time talking. I got to learn a bit of his infatuation with a single mom, an infatuation that has lasted six months. I held my tongue not wanting to really act like his business was my business, but I could tell he had it bad for a woman that probably wasn't going to reciprocate. He showed me some of the texts he sent her reassuring her that he would always be there for this girl and her daughter for the long haul, and had a sense of pride and happiness when she seemed really touched by these things. He invested a lot of money into helping this girl and her daughter out, and spent a lot of time with her.

But she also said things like "I'm not ready for a relationship right now" and as a result didn't push. I didn't say anything. I didn't know what it could have meant myself, and still don't.

Well, my friend introduces his own friend that's having a rough time to this girl, a friend he trusts. Fast forward a few weeks and now this guy and the girl are dating, and my friend is heart broken.

I did not really comfort my friend, but from what he's shown me (he makes way too many lady friends that like texting) a lot of them are basically trying to reassure him and make him feel better, that some girls "just want attention" or blah blah. He feels betrayed by his friend and at one point said he was completely honest with this girl.

That's when I stopped him. "No," I said, "You've been deceitful. You said you were in this for the long haul no matter what, but in truth you wanted a relationship. You concealed that, but it was always a motive. You lied to her."

Most of the conversation ended up being me telling him, in as kind yet honest a way as possible, that a lot of this was his own fault. He was angry because his pal was already spending the night sleeping in her bed, though he didn't know if they were fooling around. I told him it's not his business if they are. I told him if he's disgusted by the notion that she'd do such a thing then 1) she's not the sort of girl he wants anyway and 2) he didn't really know her that well and instead put this idea of who she was up on a pedestal and became infatuated with that.

There were so many things I had to tell him that night, and the weird thing was it was as if I was talking to my 20 year old self. By the end of the night I felt bad because I gave him no real reassurance. I just told him he needs to tell both of them that he needs to cut things off for the time being so he can get over it, and that he needs to realize that he volunteered to be a "free boyfriend/husband" (as in, do all the things a boyfriend or husband would do but without the sex, though I explained it in much less misogynistic terms (basically explained how, even in a strict Christian relationship where sex is held off until marriage, sex still plays an important role)), and even that when it was just the two of them talking he created an invisible barrier by making sure not to sit next to her. Even if she said she didn't want a relationship, she might have really wanted one but was just being defensive and he basically communicated that he had no physical or intimate interest in her, and while he thought he was just trying to be a nice guy he was still being deceitful of his own desires (sucks how that works out, eh?).

My final word to him, I think, was that when he developed feelings for her, he should have confessed them. I was actually reminded of peacensunshine, who told her own story of not thinking she wanted a relationship until her now-boyfriend said he couldn't be just friends, which led her to realize how much she missed him and changed her perception. I told him that he had to be willing to risk ending a friendship, for a while at least or possibly for good, because things weren't balanced. He had feelings, and if she wasn't willing to reciprocate then he needed to step away.

I think that's the hardest thing to come to grips with. Having to face that risk. It's easier to latch onto hope over an extended period of time, but risking the loss of a friendship is more likely to avoid pain and suffering on both parties. I made it clear, however, that this wasn't some "manuever" or trick. It worked for peacensunshine's boyfriend, but I wouldn't be surprised if that's the rare result in such a scenario.

Anyway, I mostly felt like getting some of that off my own chest, and figured it might help considering the current topic. I hope I gave this guy good advice, though he was really happy that I was honest with him rather than reassuring. The one lesson I learned, though, is to certainly stay away from workplace romance. He works in the same building as this girl AND his friend, and she even cornered him to say she wanted to reimburse him for all the money he has put into her and her daughter. I told him to just tell her to keep it and move on, and anything else is going to be her trying to clear her conscience. What I should have reminded is she doesn't have any reason to feel guilty.

His friend, though, knowing that he had feelings for this girl, should have at least asked first. But I tend to have that "Bro's before Ho's" thing going on so that may just depend on each person.

clover wrote:
LarryC wrote:

In terms of romantic or sexual relationships, doing polite things for women doesn't translate into sexual favors. Those are just PR. The set of activities or demonstrations necessary to create attraction (sometimes just happen to overlap with, but) are entirely separate from those with mark you out as a decent person. "Nice Guys" don't get that.

+eleventy billion

To pull something linked over in that thread over here:

To paraphrase Lindy, women aren't vending machines where if you put in enough Nice, sex comes out.

I guess part of the explanation for the way things are is, guys actually DO work like this. All the things used to explain why being a NiceGuy isn't enough and why believing it should be reduces women to objects and is a screwed up way of thinking about human beings...ehh it kinda runs into the problem that if you flip it all around, being a NiceGirl is more than enough.

CheezePavilion wrote:

being a NiceGirl is more than enough.

Uh, no, not exactly. Perhaps if the Girl in question is very conventionally attractive.

ccesarano wrote:

I think that's the hardest thing to come to grips with. Having to face that risk. It's easier to latch onto hope over an extended period of time, but risking the loss of a friendship is more likely to avoid pain and suffering on both parties. I made it clear, however, that this wasn't some "manuever" or trick. It worked for peacensunshine's boyfriend, but I wouldn't be surprised if that's the rare result in such a scenario.

Yup. You have to be sincere when you say that you can't be friends because you're attracted romantically, that you need to either move things in that direction or put some distance between you. It's like what they say in the business world: half of negotiation is being willing to walk away. A woman may LIKE a man who's willing to do all kinds of Nice Guy things for her while receiving only dribs and drabs of "friendly" affection in return, but she won't RESPECT him, and a lack of respect is death to attraction.

Demyx wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

being a NiceGirl is more than enough.

Uh, no, not exactly. Perhaps if the Girl in question is very conventionally attractive.

And yes to this too. It might not be fair, but if a woman is hot, all she has to do is not be batsh*t crazy and she's likely to be successful in dating. But if she's, say, morbidly obese, then she can be as nice as she wants and men still won't be attracted to her.

Demyx wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

being a NiceGirl is more than enough.

Uh, no, not exactly. Perhaps if the Girl in question is very conventionally attractive.

Well that's the thing, it's assumed that the NiceGuy is attractive enough. If he's not, there's your explanation plain and simple: he's not physically attractive enough.

That sort of gets out into a more complex discussion about how being nice isn't enough to make up for being unattractive while other things are, which comes with enough baggage for its own discussion, but as far as straight up comparisons, the explanation then isn't about "you need to do more than just be nice" it's about "you need to look different."

One thing I've observed in younger "nice" guys is that even if they're only moderately attractive, or very plain (or worse) themselves, they're mostly interested in (and get friendzoned by) disproportionately attractive women. It's like there's a filter where it doesn't occur to them to consider most "regular" girls dating material. Too much pop culture consumption? I dunno.

I think a small part of the problem is trying to "date outside your league", maybe. They're certainly not charming enough to make up the difference at that point

I don't really know any older nice guys though, so my personal sample is skewed (and a little out of date).

I think what trips a lot of people up is confusing "affection" with "attraction."

You ask a girl what she finds attractive in a man and she might list off all kinds of Nice Guy qualities like being friendly, polite, respectful, caring, giving, etc. etc. etc. But if you could peer into her mind and see the images she's conjuring up when she says this, she's assuming that all of these behaviors are being done by a good-looking, successful, attractive man. Of COURSE she wants that guy to act that way toward her. Take the same set of behaviors and apply them to a man she doesn't find attractive, and all of a sudden they seem needy and creepy and overbearing.

So you get a lot of guys who are already nicer than they need to be getting told to be EVEN NICER, when what they ought to be doing is working to become more attractive. It's not their behaviors that need work, it's themselves.

clover wrote:

One thing I've observed in younger "nice" guys is that even if they're only moderately attractive, or very plain (or worse) themselves, they're mostly interested in (and get friendzoned by) disproportionately attractive women. It's like there's a filter where it doesn't occur to them to consider most "regular" girls dating material. Too much pop culture consumption? I dunno.

I think a small part of the problem is trying to "date outside your league", maybe.

I've been thinking for a while about the aspect of leagues. I think part of the issue is that a "regular" girl might just be more attractive to guys than the "regular" guy is to girls.

They're certainly not charming enough to make up the difference at that point

I don't really know any older nice guys though, so my personal sample is skewed (and a little out of date).

I think your right about that, that you don't see any older nice guys because by that point, they've had to evolve into either CharmingEnoughMen or into CreepyOldDudes?

There's something to be said of chemistry as well. When my Ex split with me one of the things she said was that the "spark wasn't there". Looking back, it's because I did a ton of things that seemed way too attached way too soon, which made me less attractive, and would have hindered that chemistry. Plus, there is a big difference between wanting something and having it.

Friendly, polite, respectful, caring, giving, etc. etc. are all traits people should have in general. In fact, now that I think about it, most of the time when someone describes who they want to date in terms of personality, it's basically "these are all the features that make someone nice and a good friend". There has to be that extra oomph that pushes it a step further, and often enough that basically comes down to sexual attraction, I think.

Don't be a jerk. That's really the baseline recommendation for finding a long term relationship - at least one that isn't full of drama and stress. Of course, if you don't want a mid to long term relationship, being a jerk actually helps you to burn bridges.

The thing that NicePeople (guys and girls) often don't realize are these two key things:

1. They need to work on factors that will make them more sexually attractive. An ugly guy is off to a bad start, but it's nothing that can't be made up with dance lessons, personality development, and a good sense of style.

2. What men find compelling in other men (that guy must be getting all the girls!) isn't necessarily what women find sexy in a man. Likewise, what women think men are attracted to isn't necessarily what men actually are attracted to.

Examples:

Some women have insecurities about their breast sizes or thigh fat. Are men really attracted to big breasts and small butts? Er, no. Some guys like smaller breasts (me), and some guys like a nice, rounded rump (also me). It'll give you a lot less grief if you went for guys who like your body type as a matter of taste.

Similarly, what men think is attractively muscular and sexy is often WAY overboard in terms of muscle development. They're responding to ratios that tell them an alpha male is alpha - worth respecting and following. Women largely don't respond to the same signals. Studies suggest that women on the whole prefer a more understated, normal build. Of course, some girls go for the big muscles. If you're on the large, fat side, well there are women who are into that.

Developing qualities that make you attractive is what lands you the guys (and girls). Common decency is, for good or ill, not generally considered sexually attractive.

LarryC wrote:

Are men really attracted to big breasts and small butts? Er, no. Some guys like smaller breasts (me), and some guys like a nice, rounded rump (also me)..

IMAGE(http://i.imgur.com/eyPU8.jpg)

Tangle cannot prevaricate

Tanglebones wrote:
LarryC wrote:

Are men really attracted to big breasts and small butts? Er, no. Some guys like smaller breasts (me), and some guys like a nice, rounded rump (also me)..

IMAGE(http://i.imgur.com/eyPU8.jpg)

I was his squire for a time in my youth. Brave knight.

ccesarano wrote:

But she also said things like "I'm not ready for a relationship right now" and as a result didn't push. I didn't say anything. I didn't know what it could have meant myself, and still don't.

Except in specialised circumstances* it means "I'm not interested in a relationship with you, but you're not a jerk so I don't want to hurt your feelings". Essentially a variation on "It's not you, it's me". Even if people are in enough emotional turmoil that starting a relationship is unwise, it usually won't stop them if they're interested. Chemistry tends to trump rationality.

There's always exceptions, of course.

*If it's said to someone who's, say, a friend of gender that you're known not to be interested in, it can mean closer to what it says on the box e.g. other life events mean I can't deal with/be bothered with dating right now, so stop trying to set me up with people.

I am increasingly suspicious of the notion that any behaviour, no matter how unethical or unreasonable, is definitively a bad idea when it comes to interacting with other people.

In university I had an assignment that involved making foam sculptures featuring precisely three intersecting rectangular prisms. They were required to feature one dominant, one subdominant and one subordinate volume, each travelling generally along a separate axis, but beyond that you could do what you wanted and it turned out a huge amount of variation was possible within that framework. They look something like this:

IMAGE(http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y276/Kolian/foamform_zps18db4c50.jpg)

A bad example of such a sculpture would be something that is lumpy, indistinct and unremarkable, its planes muddled together, having no identifiable features to render it exceptional. It would be without form. The above one, however, is an okay example: It is tall and thin, its planes intersecting across the point in the middle of that photo to create a sort of interesting moment, et cetera. We can say that it does in fact have form.

The concept is applicable to all sorts of design. Video game levels are best when they feature good clarity of form, when they are memorable and about something and look/feel like something rather than just being some meandering series of tunnels or a lumpy, Perlin Noisey cluster of hills. Operating system UIs, software APIs, all the stuff I work with benefits from this concept.

So it follows that if you are attempting to design a personality that attracts people, the personality should have a clear and interesting form. From this perspective it becomes clear that all the feminist stuff-for-which-you-do-not-get-a-cookie serves as a reasonable set of constraints but not an actual design. If you go a party and sit there not making inappropriate jokes, that doesn't really accomplish anything. If all you had was this one choice, it would actually be preferable to go ahead and make those inappropriate jokes because you would at least inhabit the form of an ignoramus rather than being invisible.

Socializing with someone is a bit like playing Battleship; you're poking at different aspects of their personality to see what it looks like, because initially the whole thing is covered in fog of war. (You're also hoping to hit something interesting so that the conversation becomes bearable at some point.) So what you want is a series of interesting particular moments that gradually unveil a nice, holistic grand design. It's important to have dynamics. Different things should trigger different emotional responses (always having the same emotional response is boring and structureless). Possibly certain things should offend you; someone who is 'just sorta okay with whatever' is blobby and ambiguous. Some things you should like, but some things you shouldn't like. Some things should be funny but other things should be serious. You don't have to have all of these dynamics at the same time (that would be unsettling), but if none of them manifest in the span of one conversation then wasn't it kind of a dull experience? For those who were discussing The Game earlier, I think this is a more nuanced way of looking at Mystery's whole philosophy of 'do something other than what she is expecting you to do'; just like with design, you can rip off stuff that works really well to form your personality but if you aren't either a) Innovative, or at least b) Sufficiently different from the current status quo, your product kinda sucks and nobody is going to care about it.

During my university grad a little while ago, a professor I'd often worked with (who'd been asked to supply some information about me for a speech) chose to describe me as "unassuming". I imagine that was the only word he could come up with, which essentially makes me the Qui-Gon Jinn of human beings. I think growing up I invested a lot of effort in learning to be generally agreeable, inoffensive, conscientious, etc..., but now I believe that's playing the wrong game. That is just being a cloud of mush that lives somewhere in a set of constraints but doesn't really do anything no matter how or where you poke at the thing.

I would prefer to be like a well-architected building in that its structure is exposed and it invites you to come and exist in there. Unfortunately I'm rather more like a well-organized army. There's a passage in The Art of War explaining the idea that an ideal military formation is one that does not appear to be a formation at all because its structure is invisible. If you look for a weak point to attack, you can't find one. If you send scouts to try to find out where they're concentrated, they seem to be concentrated everywhere (or nowhere). If you march in to ambush them where you think they are, they aren't there anymore; they are instead somehow all around you (or nowhere around you) and you're f*cked. Attacking a force like this should make the opposing general feel frustrated and helpless, like she isn't going to gain any ground because she doesn't even know where to begin. That is what I imagine a conversation with me to be like.

It just struck me that the strive to be non-offensive and hidden may be a drive from the cultural value of children being "seen and not heard." My own parents and family actually deviated from that quite a ways away in the other direction - they went out of their way to make sure that I said something (anything) at family gatherings and for me to voice my opinion when solicited, and in the proper way. A child who remains quiet saves his parents from embarassment, but a child who charms crowds is the apple of her parents' eye.

As a kid, I'd hear no end of my mother telling me how inappropriately shy I was all the time.

A week ago at MAGFest some of my drunken actions led me to believe I discovered something about myself. Now I figure I just over-analyzed and overthunk it compared to the obvious explanation.

I had a lot to drink last Saturday. Several shots each of Disaronno, Bailey's Irish Cream, Godiva chocolate liquer, some sort of vanilla rum thing mixed into some other stuff, Knob Creek, and at least one Maker's Mark. All in all I had about 15-20 shots worth of alcohol of different levels. I wasn't tripping over myself level drunk, though. Just very happy and outgoing in comparison to how I normally am.

A Leliana cosplayer (though she wasn't in cosplay at the time) aggro'ed me onto some of her friends. I found it amusing. I cannot remember if I did anything too bad, though. I hugged her when she said she had been cosplaying as Leliana because I loved that character from Dragon Age, and after some conversation I was about to give her a copy of my not-so-business-card because I figured we were about to part ways anyway. In the middle of this I hugged a guy for wearing a Blind Guardian shirt.

I'd like to try and figure out if there was something I "did wrong", but I figure I should take the attitude I had when I was drunk: "oh look, you have a House Targaryen shirt on. Let's talk about Game of Thrones" (in other words, who gives a sh*t? There's someone here I can talk about Game of Thrones with)

Still, I feel kind of bad that I behaved in such a manner that caused me to be aggro'd elsewhere. It was a skilled aggro, too, meaning she's probably had to deal with this sort of thing before. I dunno if that makes me feel worse or not, but for completely different reasons.

So after some long ass conversation with folks that were awesome about games, cons and general nerdery, my friends (whom I shall call D and K for simplicity) led me to where there was some sort of VIP club room thing that MAGFest goers could get into. As the elevator doors opened we were treated to a drunk woman that kicked high into the air and flashed her panties. I feel sorry for her friend shouldering her weight trying to keep her from doing something stupid.

We went up and the club-ish area was pretty empty. There was a bunch of middle-aged women celebrating...something, a group in the back celebrating some birthday, a bnery chubby couple dancing with love and lust in their eyes (it was actually an awesome site, actually) and over in the corner was some chick grinding on a guy. Then there were a couple scattered folks that were clearly from MAGFest.

I went over to chat with the MAGFest folks as best I could over the pulsing bass of sh*tty pop music while D and K began wandering around. Now, K was wearing a Washington Redskins jersey, and as D.C. is across the river it seems there are a lot of fans in the area. So that birthday going on in the back? Well, the closer you got the more...unsettling it appeared. Bunch of guys dressed in dark clothes with a handful of ladies as arm candy. It looked straight up out of a mafia movie. Well, the birthday boy approaches K and starts talking football. Evidently this guy is a Redskins fan, too. Me, I glance over and see K talking to these guys, and they do not look happy to me. So I'm actually a bit concerned. It looks like he walked in there and these guys are now "Yo, what the f*ck are you doing man?" So after some hesitation I walk over with no idea how I'm going to try and rescue him.

"Hey Chris! Let me introduce you..."

This is when I learned it was a birthday party and they were just talking football. Then he grabs D and brings us all in to the birthday party. Eventually the birthday guy and K go off to get more drinks. That's when I notice everyone is texting. No one looks like they want to be there. They all look bored.

That's when D and I were offered cake. I tried to turn some down because it felt weird as I didn't know these people, but they shoved a plate in my hands.

It was good cake.

There's a bit of a blur at this point. Went to the bathroom, was amused that the strangely angular urinals were in front of a window looking over the city, making you feel like you were pissing on the peons beneath you. Maybe that's the point. It was a VIP area, after all. When I walked out (with washed hands, naturally) D and K introduced me to two folks from South Africa that were part of the birthday party (I guess it should be noted that everyone in this group was of a minority I couldn't identify because I'm an ignorant white boy from the New Jersey suburbs. Some looked Asian, some Indian, some Hispanic and others Hawaiian. Other than this snippet, though, I don't think it matters much). D and K basically spent the rest of the night with these guys in a joyful group chant of "f*ck Obama!" I wasn't interested, so I wandered off.

Things blur a bit again. The birthday boy, his arm candy (I'm guessing girlfriend?), and a few others made a dance circle. I hopped in the middle thrusting my hips in an obscene manner, and at some point started grinding on the birthday guy (who is like a whole foot taller than I am). Laughs were had. I parted ways, talked to some of the MAGFest folk again, and then the birthday guy told me I should just jump into the gaggle of middle aged women (well, some were mid-to-late twenties, some were early forties, so a range) and just dance. I didn't want to do that. I didn't want to interrupt their thing.

So instead I just went into the middle of the floor, alone, and doing some sort of...dance....I think. My feet and arms moved to the beat in some fashion, but one might describe it as a child having a fit more than anything else.

Until now I hadn't really noticed that more people had entered the VIP room club thing. There were more MAGFest folks, but there were also two women that had been dancing on their own. It looked like a woman of legal age and her mother. After I thrashed for a bit they came around on both sides of me and started dancing. The younger one was much, MUCH closer. I know because my elbow kept hitting her boob.

This is the part that I overthink, partly because even when I'm drunk I overthink (at this point I've had one Maker's Mark, three or four Knob Creeks, and then the collection of less manly but so tasty things listed above). I tried to move away from the younger one and thought about apologizing for hitting her boob. But I wasn't sure I should say anything so I didn't.

Then I was like a deer in headlights. What do I do here? Do I try and grind? How do you grind? I'm fat, my stomach will get in the way. Do I talk to them? People don't talk in clubs. That's stupid.

"So are you guys here for MAGFest?"

Yeah, I talked to them. The older looking one responded, but the younger looking one (doing very suggestive stuff) said nothing, and eventually it went from me being in the middle to me being shut out. It turns out they were just random ladies there for vacation.

So I wandered off, all tuckered out from my thrashy dance, and they started to close up soon after. I get onto the elevator with everyone else, and the older lady on the elevator (mixed in with a lot of MAGFest and non-MAGFest folks) says "You seem like you could be on SNL". "What? Why?" And then some random guy I hadn't spoken to all night says ...something positive. And as the elevator doors are about to close and everyone's about to tell me how awesome I am, D comes over.

"Chris, what are you doing?"

"They're closing, I'm going downstairs."

"Naw man, we're with the party remember?"

"But they're telling me I should be on SNL!"

He dragged me out of there, and I was all angry. That could have led to hanging out with awesome people! And I was being given compliments! From strangers! What the Hell, D?

That basically did kill the night for me, as everyone and everything dispersed and there was no trace of anyone, and sleepiness had suddenly struck. So I went to bed.

Now then, I wasn't intending to make an overlong story out of my drunken experience, but the next day on the drive home I got into over-thinking mode. I liked that even when I was so drunk events were blurring together I still thought about apologizing for repeatedly hitting a woman's boob. It makes me feel gentlemanly, and the only reason I didn't say nothing is because, let's face it, if she cared she would have moved herself (I'm not sure because my eyes were mostly closed, but she might have moved in closer as I tried to inch a bit of distance away).

I then tried to over-analyze my deer-in-headlights moment and think "Hey, I guess sex isn't my goal! That's a good thing". Well, I don't think it is, but not for all the reasons I'd like to believe. One of the reasons I was caught like a deer in a headlights was because I got self-conscious and over-thinking. The truth is I actually liked her boobs and would not have minded some time giving 'em a squeeze, because God dammit it's been years since I felt a boob. But I still don't know what to do when I'm in a situation like that, and in truth I was wondering if I should or not. So I still hadn't figured out if I would like to randomly get laid or not.

So if the drunk-you is the real-you, then what I can gather is I want to be polite and considerate, I want to grab boobs and partake in such exciting frivolities, but 1) I don't know how to go about it, 2) even if I do I'm too self-conscious to pull the trigger, and 3) I'm still not sure if I want to do it outside of a meaningful relationship.

Sounds accurate.

But, what lessons can we learn here?

I was an open and sociable person most of the time. Some random lady told me I dropped my hotel room key by accident, and I didn't hesitate in seeing her hair and asking if she was a cosplayer. I sat down with people and asked how they were doing. I didn't shy away from striking up conversation. I went into the middle of the dance floor and just ...did stuff, which worked as a lady-aggro.

I also faced a form of "rejection" twice. Leliana cosplayer aggro'd me onto her friends so she could go off and do other stuff. When I started talking, I was closed out of the lady dance.

But, when I was drunk, I simply laughed because I recognized what happened and why. I shrugged it off and continued on. I was not hurt by it, and didn't even think about it too much until I was sober the next day driving home.

This should be the attitude to have while sober (with more obvious restraint when necessary). Be happy. Talk to people. Don't be afraid of "what if they don't want to talk to me?" just do it. If they don't want you around, they'll let you know somehow. And if people reject you in some manner, that's okay. Shrug it off and find other people to hang with.

At the very least I hope this little life lesson that reinforces everyone's advice was entertaining in some fashion.

The confidence, positivity and sociability thing will become self-reinforcing as you go along, too, which is good.

I know you're being facetious, but I would recommend first physical contact being something like a hand in the small of the back while leaning in to talk to her rather than a boob-grab.