Group therapy in a blog.
Is “Playing Hard to Get” a Non-Issue in the Digital Age?
This past Friday night, I did a Bloggers’ Roundtable at the Town & Village Synagogue in downtown NYC, featuring participation from the venerable bloggers of BlogsofZion, Kesher Talk, Shabot6000 and Jewschool. And my column in the Jewish Week for this week focused on “Dating 2.0“–a new model for approaching relationships in the digital age. So when a reader/attendee at the roundtable approached me afterwards and asked me about “playing hard to get” and whether women should engage in this, I thought before answering.
My immediate response was that playing hard to get, a la “The Rules” was ridiculous. That there’s a number of days minimum that women should wait before agreeing to date a particular gentleman caller seems antiquated and a little too game-oriented for my taste. But anecdotal evidence does seem to suggest that men do enjoy a bit of a challenge–if something or someone is accessible, it doesn’t seem to be as thrilling or filled with accomplishment as something that’s a little less so. So being available at every moment–or to quote Ms. Roberts-as-celluloid-hooker, “a beck-and-call girl”–might not be the best idea either. Not always being available when he calls also helps to avoid becoming his melancholy booty call baby or his inadvertent friend-with-not-all-the-
benefits-you-were-looking-for, and might help weed out people who don’t have a serious interest.
But once you’re playing the game, there are risks. Not being available can also be interpreted as lack of interest. (Not disinterest, which is something different: see William Safire in this weekend’s NY Times Magazine.) Plus, in the digital age, people are a lot more accessible than they used to be. Back in the day, if you left your house or your office, you couldn’t be reached by telephone. You were off the grid. But today, people can always get a hold of you, via phone, cell, email, pager, Sidekick, texting or whatever. “Hard to get” isn’t the problem.
So my response is this: one should not “play” anything. But constant availability, to the detriment of your own emotional well-being, is also not good. It’s about knowing your balance and what you want out of a relationship. If you want long-term serious, don’t settle for being an FWB. If what you want is an FWB, then don’t get involved with someone who wants a long-term relationship. If you tend to get sucked into long IM conversations with “potentials” who never make a move beyond the message window, just say no. If you tend to respond too eagerly when a potential calls, screen your incoming calls…you can always call them right back if it’s urgent, and if it isn’t, it can wait, and probably should.
So in short, gameplaying, bad. Knowing what you need, good.
But that’s just one person’s opinion. Now’s the part when you tell me that I’m wrong, or that I’m “right, but…”
that makes sense to me. Now, come participate in our auction.
I fully agree with you here. It’s not a game; as you say, it’s knowing what you need and what you’re looking for.
Wow, very well spoken and on the nose! All you really have to be is ‘happy and busy’, (to quote the ‘actual’ Rules,) and not all that calculated. Oh, and to add my own advice, IMing with strangers is never a good idea. It makes men lazy. Save IM for friends and family
I think that’s about right Esther. Nowadays very few people actually have time to play games, and even those that do, probably have different agendas. We pay plenty to keep in constant contact with the world, and yet very few of us are needed for vital services on an hourly basis. So there really is no excuse for not keeping in touch, other than you’re lazy, very busy and/or not very interested.
BTW: I totally love your take on Dating 2.0. We forget the basics. There’s more real information in a simple smile than in 100’s of emails. There’s more bells that ring loud and clear when the question is asked ‘Have you ever been married, and do you have any kids?’ and there’s a long pause at the end of the line or a slow stare on the other end of the table. You can actually see people lie to you. It makes more of an immediate impression. You’ll remember it. It’s not always fool proof, but in the end, it may save time from months of flirty emails with the married trolls who troll Jdate looking for fresh prey. The guy who pulls out his wallet to show you his kids as a reflex action is qualitatively different than the one closing up and making excuses for his failed marriages.
We are a social species, and yet we forget the very basis of this was face to face interactions. Always has been, always will be. Failing this the voice even communicates more information in a few spare minutes than will months of email/IM exchanges. It’s the human in human communication. Longer is better too, there’s more context to grab on to. But in this day and age no one writes very long emails or IM’s anymore, and that’s a shame. Cheers & Good Luck! ‘VJ’
Read more about this ‘face to face’ dynamic in intimate & human communications from Prof. Helen Fisher, who still teaches at Rutgers, and is seen around the world on TV perhaps regularly as the only living Anthropologist most people can name. Cheers & Good Luck! ‘VJ’
My observation is that many singels have this disorder whereby, if someone likes them, that person, cannot be normal.
That is why I suggest that all singles who are bothered by that condition, that marital status, should go for a comprehensive Neuro-physical testing.
This will help them to identify and resolved their problems which are preventing them from attaining this elusive goal.
If I had known, I would have come see you speak! I do think it’s important not to show too much eagerness, but I haven’t dated someone new in so long, I wouldn’t know the rules anyhow.
Let’s face it- if you have to play games to get the guy (or girl) to like you, he’s not for you. If he really likes you, he won’t care how often you answer his calls.
I think that with more people, in general, being more accessible all the time, playing hard to get is actually more difficult, because men are more likely to jump to conclusion faster and interpret it as lack of interest. Thus, playing hard carries more risk than in the past.
Technology doesn’t help mitigate the risk, it only makes things worse. Digital communication (ala IMing) allows for ambiguity. In this case, this ambiguity is mostly likely to be used deliberately, and being misunderstood by the other side. It “works” both ways – also for the male’s perspective.