There are (probably) many people who make it to their 30th year of life having resisted the experience of ever locking down a particular significant other for any length of time. And then there's me, who falls into that category, and has only the subjected ignorance of how it all came to be that way.
If I'm looking over my dating history, I can say with force, that it isn't for lack of trying or from want. (Others might disagree.)
According to my friends, I fall under one of two categories. When it comes to dating "game", I either have ZERO game or I have the WORST game.
We were debating which is the worse predicament; which is why I am humiliating myself by writing up a blog post about it.
The argument is that it is better for me to have no game than it is for me to have the worst, because, there is something endearing about a young, innocent frolicking through life not understanding exactly how to date or entice men. In a sense, there is still hope that one such person could--if not be taught--at least be coached and eventually, there would be a success of some sort. Or someone might just take pity, and scoop up the naive thing and call it a day.
Having the WORST game, though, suggests something much more menacing. It means that there is, not just a level, but a full blown war of self-sabotage. That I might actually know what I am supposed to be doing, but then do the exact opposite to an end of consistent and counteractive results. (This also includes unending, entertaining beratements from friends.)
For instance: let's say that a guy in my ward* begins to show an interest in me by making an effort to say hello every time we are at a church activity together. He is kind and polite, and the handful of conversations we've had show no major red flags or reasons to stop anything from happening.
The person with no game would be genuinely clueless of the efforts said guy is making in hunting her down each Sunday, especially given that she is never on time. She might even think that he was more interested in the girl she often sits with and is seen talking to, even though he hasn't shown a marked preference for either of them. She wouldn't necessarily be encouraging, but she might be slightly flirty and generally comfortable with his presence. Nothing would happen because he would be confused, but happy to continue down a road of friendship.
The girl with the worst game would see that he's sought her out, regardless of whether or not her friend was present, and would even note how he stands close to her and has suggested they go to Stimulus Tuesday ($5 movie night) or read that article she mentioned she found interesting the last time they spoke. She would mention how busy her calendar was, and waste time provoking him by asking about his dating successes and failures, and at the end, would announce that she has a friend to set him up with. All without thinking once about going on a date with him herself.
At least, that is how I see those two scenarios going.
And really, I have been guilty of both. Because I have my own theories. They much more resemble an economics class with lectures on supply and demand and desirability of certain commodities. Since I have never taken an economics class, I will spare us all on me even beginning to explain. I will say this, I do believe I'm more self-aware than for which a lot of people give me credit. Sometimes the guy is just being friendly and really is interested in the girl across the cultural hall and appreciates that you aren't throwing yourself at him.
*There is no guy. This is a purely hypothetical situation.