Definition of a "player"

Starting a debate on sexuality and consent.

This is from the male heterosexual POV.

Using money for sex or evidence that you have money.
(translates to “all heterosexual females are whores”)

Saying anything other than “will you have sex with me” or “let’s have sex” before being in sexual engagement with a female.
(translates to “all females are whores”)

Not having any sort of gossip base prior to the question in condition (undefined terms and whatnot – romance/mind-reading games etc… #2 private access)
(translates to “all females are whores”)

(translates as: “females need to be raped” “females cannot consent to sex”)

Why is this critical? Well, hetero sexual sex has something to do with reproductive aspects of the species. What is being reproductively selected by females?

First… how does “all females are whores” (with respect to reproduction) have anything to do with “females cannot consent to sex” (with respect to the rape idea)?

This backs up to what is being selected sexually. Evidence that the being in question is unaccountable, thus giving evidence that they are amenable to exploiting other human beings to their own end (and presumably the females, so as to ‘raise children’) But even considering that females DON’T want to have a child, the selection criteria is still exactly the same.

How does the idea “all females are whores” connect to “females cannot consent to heterosexual sex” though?

Well… in general, and this may be too abstract as a condenced version…

To choose sexualality with one male over another based upon whether or not the male uses techniques of coersion, or is imbued with evidence that they extractr that coersion from elsewhere… shows that selection is based primarily upon evidence that the male is not representing that which affords survival to either themselves or the species (potetnial children included) or the female in question.

How can a being consent to their own suicide and the eradication of themselves and the entire species, when they state that they are interested in survival (and show such evidence by eating food etc…)? The answer is that they are not at sufficient cognitive function to possess the capacity to consent.

What does this say of males who are sexually selected by these females, females, which are a rule without exception? It equally states that the males engaged in this behavior of sexual action with a female are equally of insufficient cognitive function to be considered consenting beings.

“players” constitute a broad spectrum of life. In short, players are individuals who cannot pass the inherency test, that recieve female sex. But since most people have no clue what I’m talking about, and since, if they looked at the inherency test (being the players that they are) would begin to “play” and run gossip algorithms because they don’t know any better, because they’re not aware that they exist. I’ll tone it down and suggest then, that a player (as a male) (female “players” are called “teases” which is an entirely different concept)… Is someone who recieve sex under the three conditions first listed in this post.

The whole point of being a player, is of course, to run counter-intelligence on what constitutes a player. And since by defition, players aren’t aware that they exist… I’m not sure why I’m writing this other than a sense of lonelyness.

The #2 was misplaced. What this means in short, is that people haven’t been gossipping about you before you ask the question. You don’t possess a gossip aura that preceeds you. (gossip being algorithms using undefined terms).

I forgot an additional criteria that changes the first condition.

Since it’s implied that a physically attractive male or even a male can be picked up with ease, that a male asking first is part of playing into the dynamic of delusion with respect to sexual consent.

Players also ask. To refine the criteria of a player in the male heterosexual arena…

A male who requests sex from a female.
A male who pays for sex from a female.
A male who used undefined terms and concepts in front of a female before having sex with them.
A male who talks to a female with the intent of being asked for sex.
A male who has been gossipped about before the female asks for sex.

If a heterosexual male is to screen out rape (sex with a non-consentual being), this is the circumstance as it currently stands. This is not only avoiding coersion, it’s also avoiding the insidious simulation of consent. Since females hold the same cognitive age, they can consider themselves to have been a consenting being until death… the irony being, that the very nature of the coersion is what intentional beings do to avoid death. Coersion would be how to intentionally commit suicide.

No edit, and impulsive posting = being banned or leniency if the content is considered outside of just these rules.

If I am banned for this, I did have one more comment to make about the distinction between delusional sexual selection purposes and falsifiably accountable ones.

I did it! Somehow, I managed to solve this problem in a manner that at least runs epiphany for myself.

I’ll add more steps and some commentary in this post for those interested in this line of thought.

A male who requests sex from a female.
A male who pays for sex from a female.
A male who shows evidence of wealth in front of a female that they agree to have sex with.
A male who used undefined terms and concepts in front of a female before having sex with them.
A male who talks to a female with the intent of being asked for sex.
A male who has been gossipped about before the female asks for sex.

This is complete, with one exception. I’ve always had a “code”, but never understood why I applied it in such a consistently exacting manner, other than the basic knowledge that my survival depends upon not being selected for delusion and/or coersion… and not rewarding others for the same.

The incomplete ammendment to this criteria for not reping a heterosexual female is that I cannot accept consent by the revelation of this code… or rather, if I tell this code, I cannot accept sexual consent, as it being so rare to articulate, might also give evidence that I exploit people. Private access… or rather, using my LACK of effort to bestow this linguistic token upon others, who might be selected instead of me, as justification that I deserve the label of “sexual consent” should a female be attracted to such a linguistic token. This really gets back to “not asking for sex” and “not accepting sex after using undefined terms” etc… But with more clarification.

The other aspect of clarification here is that much of this code is also about what the MALE accepts. If a male accepts sex from a female that he has used undefined concepts in front of, prior to first sex, for example… then he is clearly acting in a manner consistent with intentional suicide, not only for him, but also the female, potentially the species.

The player is defined as such. This is the distinction. Aside from existence not existing, or otherness not existing… as some argue, this is falsifiable as the criteria for rape naturalistically… like in a lab with agreed upon conditions by all parties. This is the sexual selection criteria that selects death for the individual and species. By this I mean, the 6 criteria (all self referrential) (and the 7th add in in this post: self-recursive) if used to facilitate sex is designed to select death in all possible senses in the species and individual.

If you are now clear on the contents of your epiphany, I’d like to read them and offer comments on them, if you’d care to repost them.

Please consider your audience. We aren’t already inside your head. At least I am not. I haven’t the vaguest idea what you’re talking about. (Well, except that it has something to do with consent, violence, prostitution (?), the hoops-jumping thing of the male sex role in courtship, and perception).

You may be making transparently clear sense to yourself but it all reads like notes on the back of a napkin to me.

I’ll leave it to other readers to let you know if this is pretty close to being the universal case.

I agree with AHunter3. I don’t know what the topic for debate is.

To pick one point, I think that rape inherently means that the female was not allowed to exercise sexual selection. You don’t have a choice if you’re raped.

Rereading the thread, it seems you might be asking “Why do women have sex with players?” Is that it?

I don’t think you should be banned, but maybe you could focus on one or two points and explain them, and then ask the question you want to debate.


Me three. :confused: If you have a point you would like to discuss, you’ll have to write it in such a manner that others can understand it.

I suggest the OP watch a Chris Rock concert. That’ll set him straight on gender roles.

[sub]“Nice to meet you. You want some dick?”[/sub]

olanv, I suspect you’re overanalyzing the phenomenon.

In my experience “playa’s” adopt their attitudes and affections not so much as a result of their inherent values with regard to women, but as a result of their relationship to theirl male peers.

It’s normal for adolescent males to attempt to fit in and establish themselves in the pecking order. And it’s also normal for them to invest a lot in reinforcing their own self esteem and masculine self-image.

Now, project those normal male tendencies into a context where one is immersed in the MTV/hip-hop/gangsta cultural idealism, which incorporates lots and lots of violence, materialism, chauvinism, misogyny and homophobia.

The result? Everybody’s a Playa. Or, more accurately, every boy is posing as one to impress his peers.

And they pose that pose so much, they forget it’s a pose, and so they don’t turn it off when they’re dealing with females, who are impressed by another set of values entirely (unless they’ve bought into their role as portrayed in the culture, which is unfortunately all too frequent).

The same phenomenon gives rise to stereotypes ridiculed on SNL with characters like “The Continental,” and “The Festrunk Brothers.” The only real difference (aside from them being caricatures of course) is the proportions of the above ingredients in the mix.

What’s missing? A respectful and respectable male role model to show young men: “This is how you treat a woman. This is how you behave like a man.”

In other words, a father figure.

I think I have a vague idea of what the OP(s) is/are about, but what has suicide got to do with any of it?

I’ll say my peace and be done. It’s struck me tonight that people don’t want the option to choose immortality… to be able to push a button and have it, and while in it, to be able to push a button and switch back. This is the only thing I know how to do. I have been here for 27 years trying to discern whether I should do it. I have realized tonight that it is not time.

Justhink - is that you?


I thought I heard the sound of chain-links clanking in response to the chain being yanked…

If you can push a button and become immortal, I’d say go for it. You’ll be guaranteed a great career in any number of fields: stunt man, fire fighter, soldier…

I think the imortality button is suicide, ie once it is pressed you either no longer eist and no longer know or feel anything, or you know you are imortal.
olanv you seriously need to go see a psychiatrist about these suicidal thoughts of yours, they are a sign of depression that may be cureable.

My thoughts exactly, but he seems to be a level above some sort of bot on philosophy, whick I think Justthink was.