Decoding Love - Andrew Trees [61]
Of course, we already know that we live in a monogamous society, and all sorts of variables creep in that quickly complicate any simple scenario. Take, for instance, the issue of sex. Women willing to accept a short-term relationship can probably attract a much higher quality mate than if they hold out for a long-term commitment. But a single woman can’t completely alter her market value simply by withholding sex, because she is not only trying to attract a man but is also competing against other women.
Another classic game can illustrate the problems that this sexual uncertainty adds to the equation. Imagine that a group of hunters are chasing a stag. If they all work together, they will kill the stag and share in a vast quantity of meat. But there is a chance that they will fail to catch the stag. Then, no one will eat. A hunter can also desert the stag hunt and kill a rabbit. If he defects early, he has an excellent chance of killing one, although it won’t be the meat bonanza of the stag hunt. If enough hunters defect, the stag will definitely escape, and only those early defectors who went after the rabbits will eat. The game outlines the difficulties of cooperation.
Now, imagine a similar situation with women who are all pursuing a high-status male with little interest in a long-term commitment. Only these women face an added difficulty—they will not share in the spoils of the hunt, which makes cooperation among them virtually impossible. If they all agreed to abstain from sex with him, they could very likely force him to choose a long-term partner. But some of those women will know that they are unlikely to win the prize. They might be happy to have a short-term liaison with the man (the equivalent of going after a rabbit), rather than nothing at all. So, while a woman can exercise great power over her suitors by withholding sex, she is not doing this in a vacuum, and there are plenty of women around her who will choose to play the game differently.
GETTING INTO THE GAME
As with analyzing dating as a market, people must first accept that there is an element of strategy in their own dating—another direct blow to the romantic story line, which insists that love is spontaneous and largely impervious to manipulation. Some people are reading this now and thinking, “I don’t play games.” You may very well believe this is true, but that is simply one more move that one can make in any game situation. By saying you don’t play games, you are signaling to others that you have certain traits (trustworthiness, sincerity, etc.) that make you more attractive. You may also be trying to rule some games out of bounds (for example, you may be signaling that you won’t tolerate deception). However, all but the most obtuse among us will admit that there are certain moves in the game of dating that we don’t make, no matter how much we claim not to believe in games. For example, no one wants to look desperate. We all know that on a first date, no matter how well it is going, we don’t blurt out that we think we might be falling in love or that the other person is “the one,” even if we have glancing thoughts in that direction. It’s a supremely bad move, more likely to signal that you are not a valuable dating partner.
There are an almost infinite number of moves in any encounter, but some basic ones frequently come into play. Men tend to deceive women about how committed they are, and women try to counteract that by imposing courtship costs. Some women even resort to what a game theorist would call the ultimatum game when they tell their partners that they have to be married (or engaged) by a certain date, or the relationship is over. Others try to impose strict rules for the games that are allowed by joining dating sites that have values built in, such as conservadate.com or singleswithscruples.com (which explicitly markets itself to people who are “tired of games”!).
My own personal favorite is the self-deprecation gambit. The appeal of the anti-appeal. In other words, you are such